It cuts even deeper than a "quality of life" issue for secularists. In many cases, abortion is not a quality-of-life issue. Even if the child will grow up happy and healthy, secularists do not oppose aborting that child. An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. Invariably, the secularists side with death.
Secularists often celebrate death. According to WorldNetDaily, at a national meeting of abortion providers, Michael Haskell, the creator of the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure, narrated a graphic video of a partial-birth abortion. When he was finished, the crowd burst into applause.
This analysis leaves one question unanswered: What about the death penalty? Liberal secularists in large part oppose the death penalty, while the conservative religious support it. Isn't this a reversal of the religious/pro-life, secular/pro-death formula?
When the death penalty debate is distilled to its essence, the formula once again asserts itself. Religious people who support the death penalty support it because they sympathize with the life of the victim over that of the murderer. In order to show the value of each human life, we must give the ultimate penalty to anyone who destroys a life.
Secularists who oppose the death penalty oppose it because they do not value human life as much as do the religious. When the punishment for murder does not fit the crime, human life is devalued. When murderers are given sympathy, life is devalued. The same person who argues against the death penalty for murderers also argues for mercy for rapists and parole for hoodlums.
A society must be based on love of life, whether that life is perfect or the life of Terri Schiavo. We must choose life in order that we may live. For who among us has a perfect life? Had we all been aborted, or had the plug been pulled, or had a murderer been set free, society would have no meaning -- we would descend to the level of animals. Which might be the goal of the liberal secularists in the first place.