I agree with your conclusions. Good work.

Though, I don't think that we need any God image to establish the value of any living thing. Nature already does that. If a species contributes more to its future and the future of its environment, then it persists. If it consumes its future, it dies off.

The only "God-given" (Natural) right is the Right to Try to Live.

All others are statutory, but that doesn't mean they are granted by government. Government is only there to ensure the agreed-upon civilized rights are distributed fairly.

It's the bullies, thieves and self-important deists who take away other people's rights by selfish schemes.

If we include future people and the environment in our 'fairness' of granting the agreed civilized rights, then there's a lot of work to do to determine what is legal and not. If the environment is given equal right to exist, then we can't continue with an unimpeachable human 'right to life'. Each life will have to be useful.

Like the concept of "Let's make a world where people want to live", we would have to make a world where people don't want to damage the future of other people.

Just as it is difficult to raise children who excel without the paradigms of competition and hardship (our systems are built on them), it would be difficult to build a system that discourages selfish 'progress' in the name of "pursuit of happiness". It's so difficult, in fact, that few have even tried.