Value is a term that is plastered to the context. I am more valuable in some situations than others. For example, I'm a valuable musician to the groups I play in. Without my part, the groups can't function. I also work hard to give positive contributions. However, I have no value to a team when playing any sport. I play very poorly just stand as a road block for the others to navigate around. These are easy examples, but they can be expanded. My mother abused me. She has limited value to me. However, she is a very hard working and capable doctor. One could argue that she has no value to society because she was mean to her children and damaged them psychologically, but technically, she has helped hundreds of people in her work.

Then there are people who do not make any positive contribution to society at all. My friend's dad is a good example. He's an abusive drunk who lives on welfare when he could work and lies on his tax forms. So when looking at the word value in terms of contributing goods and services to society, he has no value. However, he is a very smart man who is cunning enough to get away with a lot of his crimes. You could say that because he has merits that could contribute to society, he has value. You could also say that everyone has value because no one is absolutely bad or good. It's all a giant grayscale similar to figuring out who has value where.

So, I don't think that saying someone just has or lacks value as a human being is really possible to say universally. It would depend on how you are defining value and the context. Does everyone have value to me? Not necessarily. That doesn't mean they don't have value to someone else or to society as a whole. And just because they might have value to someone else, that doesn't mean that I am wrong for not giving them any value.