Actually a tough question (kudos). But it probably is.
If it were alive and also had rights if it were alive I would err on the side of protecting the rights it would have rather than diminishing them. Moot since even if it is alive it does not have rights. (If it is not alive then it has no rights.)
The rights of said virus would emmanate from either one source or the other:
If rights come from God then God commanded man to cultivate and take care of the earth which is His property. Clearly in being a steward men would at times need to weed the garden or dispense justice to murderers which might include the death penalty. The earth belongs to god but man is responsible to make the best decisions he can. If those decisions include killing viruses in accordance with other godly principles then so be it.
If rights are made by men then the fact that men did not give rights to viruses would mean that they don't have any.
Meanwhile, if God gives rights then those who are created in the image of God (who is a spirit) have rights and unborn children do at the point that they are ensouled (or have a spirit). This is where I depart from the rest of the pro-lifers. Science may indicate that individuality starts at conception but the bible is not that clear and leaves room for a possibly later, though still early, and unspecified date. The best reason for moving that date as early as conception would be so as to err on the side of caution.
Whereas if men give rights then we should at least be consistent about how we do it and not be hypocrites. The rights should begin at the point where our best science indicates that the unborn human is a unique individual.
