Would you say viruses have a right to life

after all virus are living organisms? should everything living have a right to life ? who is anyone to decide that anything should be exterminated?

I don't think viruses are classed as alive anymore since all they can do is reproduce. They're just a gene (not even a full DNA code, some aren't even that they're RNA with some reverse transcriptaze) surrounded by a protein shell.

If you define viruses as being alive, shouldn't computer viruses also be alive? A virus needs a medium in order to reproduce in, on its own it's inert, computer viruses need running software to reproduce but they work essentially the same way, hijack computer code to reproduce itself just as a virus in biology hijacks the DNA code of a living cell to reproduce.

Just because something can reproduce doesn't mean it's alive - take fire for instance. The flames can increase in size (grow) and number (reproduce) until all the fuel is consumed just like biological organisms, I don't think anyone would make the case that fire is alive.

edit:

Can you back up your belief that viruses are alive with more than just assertion? I'd be interested in hearing your views on why fire and computer viruses aren't alive but a gene surrounded by a protein is.

Virus' do not have a conciousness. They do not breathe, they do not live. They are not living organisms.

Easy mistake to make - one of my lecturers even asked us if we thought virus' were living! Virus' operate via very complicated signalling processes, for example they may attach to a receptor on a cell by random collision and be transported into that cell because the cell doesn't know it is harmful, then the virus will release its genome once inside that cell due to a change in pH (as one signalling factor).

Further questions bout this? Just ask!

IN response to your additional details: