No, I wouldn't say a life with dependents has more value. However, I do think it should be prioritized over those without dependents.

But that has nothing to do with inherent value.

But I'm not talking about inherent value, I'm talking about the calculations that go into health care. The life of a person raising children should absolutely be valued higher than that of one who isn't. And I want to be clear, I don't have children, and I don't plan to, so this isn't selfishly motivated, it's just common sense to me.

More children mean a bigger climate footprint. Also, some children will be net negative on the tax and societal side (violent criminals that will never be gainfully employed). So it's not black and white. And I at least pay more taxes than a family of 3, assuming all of them are, for example, "just" store clerks.

So, what I want to say is, assuming we follow this value of life calculation, I am more valuable than this whole family of three.

Ok, but the children already exist. Do you think if their parents are allowed to die they will become less of a tax burden?

This isn't an argument about whether or not we should incentivize couples to have children (we absolutely should, in my opinion), but whether parents of young children should be prioritized for life saving treatment. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the additional value of not leaving children parentless is worth including in the calculation.

Nope, people aren't equal. More children in Africa is a bigger climate footprint as they are unlikely to develop next stage energy technologies which will transform how civilization functions, in fact if high iq people do not breed, the low iq will take over.

So really your take is self defeating, but much of the progressive lefts antinatalism is which calls into question their entire agenda.

I take offense being called part of the progressive left. I just really hate children and would personally rip the blinatumomab backpack out of the hands of one if I needed it.