Yes everyone has a right to life, but more then that a quality of life. But I'm not sure what you are asking?

Explain what you mean

Yes. The right to live should include free health care-universal health care.

I subscribe to utilitarianism in some sense with the goal of maximization of knowledge. Human survival cost is in terms of resources occupied and consumed while his utility is direct or indirect production of knowledge. Those who cannot fulfill this should be eliminated.

Yes with a few exceptions, Exceptions are Trump, Pence. and the the republican congress.

I believe every living thing is entitled to its life, but everything dies, some at the hands of others. I believe that some people by their actions or the risk they pose jeopardize that right. Dangerous animals are put down. I can't kill animals, but I eat them, I wouldn't kill a person yet we have people in our prisons in Australia that I believe should have been put down. If you had a time machine, and could go back and kill Hitler and save millions of lives? Ie kill him knowing that if you didn't millions would be cruelly put to death.

To many directions you could go from that question.

there are no such things as rights

You have no right to life. I have no right to life. We do not own our genes. We assume civility until we decide for ourselves, during a crisis, if our life means more than the life of another.

That's a tough one; essentially, this notion defines "morality", treat others like they would like you to treat them. We also live in a natural world, where it is in our genes to do what we can for our species to survive, or more specifically, to push each our own particular gene pool. In prehistoric times, this meant head-to-head competition for resources, survival of the fittest. But as our species gained in intelligence, it started to become apparent that cooperation had started to become the best guarantee to survival as a species. Certain folks would take up the prerogative and turn this into a code of conduct to guide and enforce this; as with anything, it was sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes less than that; a more selfish variety that emphasized their own survival..

So from a strictly atheist point of view, a "right to life" is an irrelevant notion. What we really has is a need to survive, but once we understand that cooperation is a desirable method of survival, we create a morality (which the religious try to high-jack and call their own) which is really a guide to promote that.

This is a broad question. If you are talking about abortion then I believe its the mothers choice, but is by all means a form of birth control and should not be used as such.
If you are talking about Rapists, child molesters, animal abusers, mass murders, murderers, etc, then no they should be shot at dawn or any other time of the day asap.
Am I on the right track?

I refer to Starship Troopers for my answer to this question. The book not the completely unrelated movie by the same name.

If that life can live outside my body then it has a right to life. If it is part of me and dependent upon me then it is still my body. Every woman has to make the decision.

Depends. If they do horrible shit like raping and killing adults and children, torturing animals or other creatures, then no, in my opinion. If we are talking about like... an unborn child? It is the mother's right to choose, in my opinion. But that is a very touchy subject.