Would it be an accurate distinction to say that the difference between those that push BOD and those that push back is presumption about those that died without water baptism?  The former presume that they have been/can be saved; the latter presume they have not been saved? Personally, I lean towards the latter.  Should we even be presuming at all?

It's more a question of what Our Lord revealed and what the Church teaches.

Would it be an accurate distinction to say that the difference between those that push BOD and those that push back is presumption about those that died without water baptism?  The former presume that they have been/can be saved; the latter presume they have not been saved? Personally, I lean towards the latter.  Should we even be presuming at all?

No, one side is arguing that they *can* be saved, and the other side is arguing that they *cannot* be saved.  Nobody is arguing that they're all saved or that we can presume that somebody who dies without water baptism is saved.  Well... I guess Lefebvre did kinda assume that (for catechumens) but IDK.  What I'm not sure of is whether traditional adherents to BOD believed it required perfect contrition.  It would *seem* that perfect contrition would be the only way this could work (as we know is the case with someone who can't make a sacramental confession.)

At any rate, I don't really speculate about the salvific status of individuals.  It seems clear to me that an atheist cannot be saved, but even then, the atheist could've ceased to be an atheist and been given supernatural faith at the last moment.  It seems pretty clear to me that its dangerous and tends towards destruction of the soul to be outside of visible union with Rome and I tell people so whenever I get the opportunity, but I don't really speculate about where people ended up.  It seems clear to me that Judas was damned, and that there are going to be other people who are damned and it seems *highly probable* to me that the damned will outnumber the saved.  I don't presume that any individual who seems that they died without baptism/the Catholic faith is saved, I just leave them to God.  

We are taught that it is presumptuous to assume that a given act of perfect contrition is effective, even for devout Catholics. However, this by no means is reason to neglect to make such acts whenever necessary or desired. The doctrine and possibility of such acts is reason to assume a given person is not damned. This means that a deceased Catholic should be treated and buried with proper reverence unless it is certain they were living in unrepentant sin.

Because it is difficult to reach sufficient purity of heart and intention, even for the devout, we can assume virtually all non-Catholics are not saved. This is not absolute, however.
Some people have appeared after death and revealed that they escaped Hell through perfect contrition despite attempting ѕυιcιdє. People who showed signs of reconsidering are given Catholic burial even if they did not manage to survive their effective ѕυιcιdє.

Anyone who reaches the use of reason can use it to make an act of Faith if given sufficient Grace. The Justice and Mercy of God necessarily demand that such a person receive such Grace at least once, as no one is created for Hell. A person who makes an act of Faith can then make a concomitant or subsequent act of love or contrition, thereby escaping Hell. This is, of course, exceptionally rare within the sphere of Christian influence, and is mainly of importance in ages and places outside of at least the visible extensions of it; such as the Old Testament and those unknown to missionaries in any age.  This is quite different from the modernist notion that ALL those determined non-Catholics who cry out Lord, Lord are saved by a Baptism they have no desire for.