CathInfo.com

And to this last point I remember Fr. Wathen saying that had these aborted souls received baptism and gone on to lead adult lives, the vast majority of them would have been damned; it is a mercy, per se, that they were spared their adult lives in this Valley of Tears. 

Or even if they hadn't received the Sacrament of Baptism.

God wants everyone elevated to the supernatural state, since the lowest supernatural happiness infinitely exceeds the greatest possible natural happiness, but not having the supernatural happiness causes no suffering, since we do not have the faculties to even comprehend what that is, and, as I said, we experience suffering due to a privation of our nature.  Now, why God allows some to live and then lose their souls while others to be killed as infants and therefore to at least enjoy perfect natural happiness, He alone knows, but we know that He gives the best possible chance for everyone depending also somehwat on what they deserve.  So, for instance, God might foresee that no matter what conditions a certain souls ends up in, he's going to damn himself, whereas for some of the aborted ones maybe they wouldn't have been filled with such malice just wouldn't have much of a fighting chance.

As St. Augustine says, those who start speculating about God's Mercy and Justice inevitably involve themselves in a "vortex of confusion", and we really needn't spend much time on this, as second-guessing the Mercy of God has caused the shipwreck of many a soul.  When we get to Heaven, God willing, we'll understand and see that everything God has done is at the same time both the most Merciful and most Just thing that He could possibly have done, given human free will in the mix.

But as soon as I see people thinking, "We must have BoD because it wouldn't be fair." ... if you think it's a legitimate line of inquiry, that's opening such a massive can of worms that, what's next?  "Well, it wouldn't be fair is an unbaptized infant had no chance to be saved."  "Well, it wouldn't be fair that this person was born into a Catholic family but that one was born into a drug-gang family in the hood." etc. etc.  That type of thinking never ends well, since our pea brains are simply incapable of comprehending the complexity of the economy of salvation.  God alone knows that if this person does this, then it'll cause that, which in turn will cause this, and that in turn will cause something else, and each individual's free will, how it interacts with any other individual's free will, etc. ... God alone knows and the hubris of second-guessing what God should or should not do has destroyed many souls.

Unfortunately, as St. Augustine realized, this is precisely the very thinking behind BoD, and so he rejected it as a "vortex of confusion" that anyone who wishes to be Catholic must reject.  Sadly, all the anti-EENS "theology" that's been done is NOT based on logic or reason, where we examine what God has revealed and draw conclusions from it, but from this emotional premise of "oh, if this person dies before Baptism, it wouldn't be fair ... it wouldn't be NITHE of God to do".  THAT IS NOT THEOLOGY.  If God does make various extraordinary provisions to save some souls, then glory be to Him, but He has chosen not to reveal such things to us, so we go with what we know, namely, that no one who does not receive the Sacrament of Baptism can be saved.  If we're wrong, as I've said, so what?  God will still save His elect, regardless of my incorrect opinon.  If we're right, then the people promoting BoD are doing great damage to souls.  That's the bottom line here.

But the reason this is a huge issue ... and why I disagree with Matthew that it's meaningless (ideas matter, Matthew, as Bishop Williamson emphasized constantly) ... is because ALL THE ERRORS OF VATICAN II HINGE ON THIS QUESTION.  Why can't Trads get that through their thick skulls.

MAJOR:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.  Dogma.
MINOR:  Prots, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, pagans can be saved.
CONCLUSION:  Prots, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, pagans can be in the Church.

That conclusions is in fact Vatican II in a nutshell, and if I believed the above premise (in the MINOR), I would accept all of Vatican II immediately.  I would have to.  EVERY ERROR in Vatican II except perhaps, oh, collegiality, derives from this soteriology and the resulting ecclesiology, as even Rahner recognized and admitted.  Even religious liberty.  Why?  Because if we have no subjectivized the criteria for salvation, where we please God and save our souls by doing what we (even erroneously) think is right, then since we have a right to save our souls and please God, we have a right to do what we (even erroneously) think is right.

That's the subjectivism that Bishop Williamson was one of the few to identify as THE ROOT cause of the Vatican II errors ... it's just that he failed to take it to its final conclusion with regard to EENS and the V2 ecclesiology.

Can we believe that anyone who sincerely wants, I mean sincerely, to be saved, would necessarily be saved? Will this person receive baptism sooner or later? Or is it possible that even this person will be damned, for lack of predestination? For example, let's take a Novus Ordo guy who sincerely practices his faith and thinks he is baptized but in reality is not, because the priest invented a formula, but he does not know it, how can this person receive baptism if he thinks he is already baptized? This is worrying, isn't it?

Can we believe that anyone who sincerely wants, I mean sincerely, to be saved, would necessarily be saved? Will this person receive baptism sooner or later? Or is it possible that even this person will be damned, for lack of predestination? For example, let's take a Novus Ordo guy who sincerely practices his faith and thinks he is baptized but in reality is not, because the priest invented a formula, but he does not know it, how can this person receive baptism if he thinks he is already baptized? This is worrying, isn't it?

We can't confuse some "sincerely wanting" with having the will, intention, and desire to do something.  It also depends on his motives.  Sure, who doesn't want to be happy forever?  But is the person WILLING to do what it takes and does the person actually love God, or just want something for himself.  That's one of the worst problems with this notion of Baptism of Desire.  Latin word mis-translated as simple desire is votum, which is more like a vow, an act of the will (word derives from willing something), and even Catholic Encyclopedia states that this term refers to having all the dispositions indicated by Trent as necessary for receiving the Sacrament.

With that said, if God allows someone to be invalidly baptized, He has His reasons, just like He has His reasons for having various people die as unbaptized infants.  If God willed this person to have the Baptism corrected, then He'll take care of it, bring its invalidity to light, or even work some extraordinary and miraculous thing.  There was such a case in the life of St. Peter Claver, where a woman had been a devout Catholic for years, a daily Communicant, etc.  She died without the Last Sacraments.  St. Peter was inspired to raise her back to life because he knew something was amiss.  So he started to hear her confession and then suddenly received the light that she had never been validly baptized.  St. Peter baptized her, and then she died.  Now, this woman reported to St. Peter that after she died she was told at one point that she could "go no further" due to lacking the wedding garment.  So here's a woman who had been a devout daily Communicant and evidently her sincere desire and intention to practice the faith did not suffice for entry into the Kingdom.  But sine she was among God's elect, He took care of the problem, in this case miraculously.  He'd do the same as needed for anyone else, perhaps bilocating someone to that person's side in his last moments, or having an angel baptized the individual (nothing to prevent that ... so what's the need for "BoD"?), or simply work in an ordinary way by (as happened in a couple cases in the United States), having some video come to light where this deacon had been baptizing invalidly for decades.

This kind of speculation here never ends well.  We simply trust God that everything He does is the most Merciful and most Just thing He could possibly do.  And that's all we need to know, and it's nefas to inquire further.