CathInfo.com

Alright so if an invincible ignorant person who has reached the age of reason and be saved outside the Church, why can't unbaptised infants?

Clearly an infant is also invincibly ignorant. And yet the infant is in a better state than a non infant. For an infant has only original sin and literally cannot commit venial or mortal sin.

Yet a person who has the age of reason will have 100% commited venial sins, and venial sins lead to mortal sin. It is inevitable. So any invincibly ignorant non infant will be in the state or mortal sin + original sin.

So it is much worse to say that an invincibly ignorant person can be saved without baptism and the Catholic faith than to say that an unbaptised infant can be saved by invincible ignorance.

Crealy salvation in invincible ignorance is pelagianism. For it assumes that original sin does not matter for the invincible ignorant person, or that someone without baptism can be in the state of grace to be saved.

If all preborn and infants went to heaven, abortion would be a blessing and not such a heinous curse. If you let your child grow up just to risk hell what is the benefit? Better to have aborted it for a ticket to heaven.  
Now if God in His great mercy does let the unbaptized unborn into Heaven, that is His choice, information He did not impart to His Church. We cannot know this.

If all preborn and infants went to heaven, abortion would be a blessing and not such a heinous curse. If you let your child grow up just to risk hell what is the benefit? Better to have aborted it for a ticket to heaven. 
Now if God in His great mercy does let the unbaptized unborn into Heaven, that is His choice, information He did not impart to His Church. We cannot know this.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”[1]

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”[2] - Condemned

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”