[binarypaean]

I'll bite, since you could be in a really nihilistic or even self-hating space asking an earnest question.

_Being_ a person is inherently valuable, _making more people_ is not necessarily an inherent value. This inherent value is from the internalized perspective of the person doing the existing. The external recognition of this value is in - at minimum - recognition of inalienable human rights, as conveyed by documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Perhaps I am unfairly reading your questions above, but notice they seem to carry an implicit (to me) or (to you) at the end of each one. The idea of inalienable rights and corresponding inherent human value is that people do not have justify their worth (to me) or (to you).

This doesn't people can't or shouldn't strive to provide interpersonal, tangible or social goods beyond their inherent human value. It means that the encouraged interpretation of "existential original sin" is "As I develop as a person, I perceive more I could have done or could do better." BUT NOT "I started out worthless and must continually prove my value to person or group X until I earn value."