RAZD is bound to do a better job than I am at answering these but he's not around so I'll sneak in: :)
Yes. And, personally, I think that the "might" is important. We are finding pathways across the fuzzy, grey non-life-to-life boundary but it may be that the information needed to pick a particular path or be sure that we have found exactly the right one is no longer available.
Right now just finding 1 or more likely paths is the aim of research.
Question 2. What would the study of abiogenesis have to do with life outside of the planet Earth?
There would have to be another hypothesis to cover that subject as you mentioned.
It think this is just an accident of terminology and our current state. It is like the term "geology" -- it refers to the study of earth rocks. (that's the geo in it). So some might call the study of moon rock selenology for example. We named it without thinking for a minute that we would have other examples to study.
But I think that is being pedantic. It's geology if it's rocks no matter where they are.
Right now, we only have information about earth and it's life so abiogenesis is restricted to that. If we find something on Mars I don't think it would be a problem to include that in "abiogenesis".
Question 3. Are you suggesting that hypothesis be a part of the standard Theory as it is referred to by Talk Origins in the following quote? Where they are attacking Wells.
People are not always careful when using words. There aren't any thing but hypothoses or speculations on abiogenesis right now. At least that is what you'd call it if you are being pedantic and careful about the use of the words.
There is no standard theory or even, in my opinoin, a theory at all.
The standard hypothesis was, for a long time, Darwin's warm pond. I don't think there is any standard now. We've learned a lot about extant life and the range of conditions which it can live in.
Question 4. Has the Abiogenesis hypothesis reached the point it can be called the standard theory?
From above you can tell I think not.
Anything that had to do with life coming from another planet would have to be faith based as it is impossible to prove. Some would say what if we found life on another planet would that not be proof. It would be proof there was life on another planet but not that life on earth came from another planet.
This is incorrect. If we found life on another planet we might have proof that it wasn't the source of life on Earth if it was too different.
If we found life elsewhere that was very like Earth's that would, as you say, not prove it was a source of Earth's life but would help us understand more with a second sample.
If we had many, many examples of life in different places and we found that they were all different in some basic way (DNA codes e.g.) from Earth's but we found life on Mars to be very like us then we would have a strong indication that life moved from Mars to Earth or vice versa.
None of this is faith based. It can be based on whatever information we have at the time.