This is a general, overarching reply because I think this discussion has taken a pedantic twist in the sense that it's becoming a back and forth match where the same points are being repeated
ad nauseum.
And these points should be repeated
ad nauseum, because AOk has -- if s/he has done anything -- demonstrated a gap in knowledge when it comes to chemistry and biology (very specific errors having been pointed out by MrJack and Tanypteryx).
The accusation of "groupthink" may be hurled at me at this point, but keep in mind that my views are quite non-conformist compared to the views of most members of this forum.
With this preamble being made, here's the thing: AOk, your definition and main argument is simply not very useful and also dances dangerously close to committing the reification fallacy. "Life" is an abstraction; reality -- the mesmerizing and intricate interaction between matter and energy (with a dash of anti-matter, etc.) does not really care what we call or label a certain portion of the chemical and physical universe. Reality needs not -- and it does not -- nicely fit into absolute boundaries.
So a definition for "life" should not seek to be absolute. It should, instead, seek to be
pragmatic. AOk's parochial definition of what constitutes life is simply a personal opinion -- there's no reason why the field of biology (as a whole) should adopt this non-utilitarian view of what life is.
Now, since any good, scientific definition of "life" should strive to be useful in some sense, this also means that different (but largely overlapping) definitions of life will emerge. This is not a problem; definitions, in science anyway, are not intended to exist to score rhetorical points in a broader metaphysical debate.
For example, why does AOk not simply define life as self-replicating polynucleotides? The utter dismissal of defining life in this manner suggests to me that there is a clear agenda for adopting and asserting his or her chosen definition of life.
Others here have offered different definitions of life. That is all fine and good: the point is that each definition will reflect the particular research foci of different scientific and technological fields (AI, nanotechnology, molecular biology, and chemistry -- for instance -- would each have slightly varying definitions of life). Why should any scientific field favor AOk's definition over other (arguably less parochial) definitions?
Nor is this about somehow playing a rhetorical game so that abiogenesis is more realistic. Whether you define "life" as self-replicating polynucleotides or use AOk's definition, the arguments for abiogenesis do not change (of course, those familiar with my history on this forum will know that I very strongly question the validity of abiogenic hypotheses, but that's tangential).
So, go ahead, AOk. What's special about your definition? Why is your definition superior to other definitions for what constitutes life?
Here's a definition of life that I find more useful -- why do you think yours is more useful?
Living systems tend to have (a) continual integrity of overall structure amid ceaseless chemical change, with self-preservation through up-building of subsystems to compensate for down-breaking; (b) a metabolism that harnesses energy in an organized manner; (c) growth; (d) multiplication; (e) development; (f) evolvability, as a part of a greater population of similar units.