quality of life or life for life's sake

[Angrboda]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP:  Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life  OR  Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

Asked and answered. Bettering quality of life is life for life's sake. You seem to simply want to turn aside any answer that doesn't appeal to you, and then cast that as a problem with the person giving it. That's a 'you' problem not a 'them' problem. And yes, the definition of things like goal and trait do matter very much, a subject you don't appear interested in engaging in good faith.