I think there are two proper times to "play the abiogenesis card" as you put it.
First, if someone argues that the evidence for the theory of evolution implies that the question of how life came about without a super natural agent has been fully explained. I have heard this kind of equivocation before. There are certainly no shortage of naturalists to whom the "theory of evolution" when being examined to see if it holds up does not include abiogenesis. But before you can blink they will use it to as if it explained how life came about when arguing for naturalism. I am not going to ask such people to explain everything, I just ask them that if you are going to try to say that science has shown that life can come without supernatural help, you must include the evidence for the actual hard part of the problem.
The problem for the naturalist is interesting on this score. In Darwin's time the idea of abiogenesis seemed very plausible. Modern science has shown it not to be plausible, at the same time common origin has been shown to be plausible. Naturalism needs both to be true to support itself.
The second way that the card is reasonably "played" is simply as a stand a reason to be dubious about naturalism. It would not be fair to call it a disproof of naturalism, only as a reason to be dubious.
In neither "play" should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.
Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Just as super naturalism is a philosophical theory. But scientific progress can be helpful or detrimental to philosophical theories sometimes. The theory of evolution has been helpful to Naturalism, but the discovery of the implausibility of abiogenesis and failure to replicate it in labs by people determined to do so is helpful to Super Naturalism.
>>n neither “play” should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.
Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.<<
Agree on all points. My arguments are always within TToE — Naturalism as a philosophy is neither my POV nor an area of my expertise.
To summarize: we live in a natural Universe that can be explained that runs by rules, but that Universe exists within something much, much larger and inexplicable. Inexplicable until you come to God through His Son.