The reason why I do it is because I have never heard of it before, it is called Limbo of the Infants for a reason. 

And nobody ever heard of Limbo of Infants until about the year 1100 either.  This is speculative theology, and occasionally a speculator gets it right.  Obviously we can't force you to believe it, but never having heard of it before is about as weak an argument as you can get.  Make a theological argument as to why it's impossible or somehow contrary to Catholic teaching, and I'm all ears.

You also have to realize that the biggest reason that people oppose Catholic EENS teaching is that they have this monolithic view of hell, where Judas and Joe Stalin are suffering the exact same fate as a kind-hearted Jєωιѕн grandmother who sacrificed her life for her children.  People recoil at the injustice of such a thing.  But that is due to a false notion regarding hell.  Several of the quotes you cited in fact explicitly teach that people suffer in different degrees in hell.  There isn't just a single cauldron of fire that everyone just gets indiscriminately tossed into ... whether you spent your entire life as a serial killer or you just slipped up one time, fell into a single mortal sin, and died.  God is perfectly just, and that kind of thing is preposterous ... and it's contrary to Church teaching.  In fact, one of the dogmatic EENS definitions taught the variability of eternal suffering, so it's actually heresy to deny this.  So the biggest objection to EENS dogma is in fact based on a heretical premise.

Also, another quote cited from St. Thomas teaches that there is no injustice in depriving ANY human being of the beatific vision, because it's something beyond our nature.  St. Gregory nαzιanzen actually called this out in his rejection of BoD (differentiating between punishment and glory, saying that lack of punishment does not equate to receiving glory ... = beatific vision).  So if some unbaptized infant dies and doesn't have the beatific vision, it's no injustice and in fact causes them no suffering or even pain of loss.  They enter the proverbial "happy hunting ground" where they can enjoy perfect NATURAL happiness for eternity.  This notion that an unbaptized infant is hurled into a burning cauldron of fire is also implicitly behind why so many people try to speculate about how they can be "saved".  People don't understand that there isn't this simple BINARY proposition at work, that you either go to heaven and experience perfect bliss for all eternity or go to hell and suffer unimaginable torments for all of eternity.  There's a huge range in between.  Infants in Limbo experience a perfect state of bliss and happiness, to the greatest extent that nature allows.  Imagine living without pain or suffering or sadness or sorrow, but rather having the greatest happiness possible IN THIS LIFE, and that's basically what their eternity is like.  So those unbaptized aborted children are in fact "saved" from hell, even if they don't attain to the beatific vision.

I also posit that there are people who do not attain the beatific vision who suffer very little for all eternity.

Here's the way I look at heaven, hell, eternity.  Everybody gets to go wherever they want.  So, for instance, I myself love to pray and love spending time in church.  There are others, however, who can't stand it and even if forced to go are checking the second-hand on their watch constantly.  They would rather be out partying.  So for them, prayer causes them to suffer.  There are those who, like myself, love classical music.  There are others for whom listening to classical music is torture; they need to shut the stuff off and turn on the rock music.  So imagine that heaven is like praying in church and listening to classical music.  That is bliss for those who have the dispositions to enjoy these things, but it's sheer torture and torment for those who have developed a repugnance towards it.  That's the difference between heaven and hell also.  For some the knowledge and presence of God and eternal truth is sheer bliss and delight, but for others it's torture (similar to how I described classical music).  So we spent our lives developing our sensitivities with regard to how we shall experience the reality of God, with it either giving us pleasure or extreme pain.  And it will cause greater pleasure for those more disposed to them, and greater pain the less disposed one is to them.  So an evil genocidal serial killer will be tortured by the goodness of God more than a generally-kind person who tried to do his best his entire life.

If people properly understood the nature of heaven (the beatific vision) along with the happiness and suffering associated with one's eternal fate, there would be less repugnance towards Catholic EENS dogma.

PEOPLE HAVE A FALSE NATURAL UNDERSTANDING OF HEAVEN ... and that is a root cause of EENS denial.  Heaven is not simply a place of NATURAL happiness, but rather the undeserved free gift of the beatific vision that is not necessary for the perfection and perfect happiness of human nature.  This is a key teaching of St. Thomas.  Heaven is an unmerited ELEVATION of human nature.  So I don't necessarily believe that the American Indians, for instance, in their belief in a happy hunting ground after death were necessarily all that mistaken.  I believe that such a thing, or close to such a thing, is attainable by people through the practice of natural virtue.  But they can NEVER see God as He is and attain to the beatific vision without the Sacrament of Baptism and membership in the Church.

And nobody ever heard of Limbo of Infants until about the year 1100 either.  This is speculative theology, and occasionally a speculator gets it right.  

As you know, the Church Fathers were speaking about the fate of unbaptized infants since the beginning. By calling it "speculative theology and that occasionally they get it right", you are demeaning the Fathers, people graced by the Holy Ghost, they are no Tom,Dick and Harry like we are.  The only question that was open was exactly what degree of the torments of hell that they suffer. 

I have never heard or read of any Saint talking about a healthy adult going to Limbo of the Infants. Everyone is free to produce them here.

As you know, the Church Fathers were speaking about the fate of unbaptized infants since the beginning. By calling it "speculative theology and that occasionally they get it right", you are demeaning the Fathers, people graced by the Holy Ghost, they are no Tom,Dick and Harry like we are. The only question that was open was exactly what degree of the torments of hell that they suffer.

Nonsense.  Everyone followed the opinion of St. Augustine that they did indeed suffer in hell, albeit very little.  This notion that there was a place of perfect happiness for them did not enter the conversation until the 1100s ... with Abelard.

As you know, the Church Fathers were speaking about the fate of unbaptized infants since the beginning. By calling it "speculative theology and that occasionally they get it right", you are demeaning the Fathers, people graced by the Holy Ghost, they are no Tom,Dick and Harry like we are.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Limbo -- PLEASE NOTE THE SENTENCE IN BOLD

Limbus infantium

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

.
Whoa, I don't think so. Even the least damned soul (excluding infants who went to limbo, obviously) suffers incredible, unimaginable pain. Our Lord talked about hell by describing it as fire, with weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm dieth not, and so on. He said that on the last day the wicked will be cast into eternal fire. Of course our Faith teaches that people who are more guilty will be punished with greater suffering in hell, but it is clear from the the words of Christ that everyone would burn in fire. He didn't make any exceptions when he said the wicked would all burn.

St. Augustine, for instance, would disagree with you.  He taught that unbaptized infants were in hell but that their punishment was "extremely mild".  So he felt it was not inconsistent with Scripture and Tradition to posit that some in hell do suffer very mild punishment.  Our Lord spoke of the wicked suffering extreme torments, but that does not rule out some others who were less wicked suffering less, and those who were much less wicked suffering much less.  St. Augustine agrees with me on that point.  In fact, many theologians consider Limbo to be part of hell, so a place in hell with NO suffering.  You have to be careful with private interpretation of Scripture.

For that matter EENS comes from speculation ...

It most certainly does not.  This was taught as constant Tradition from the beginning and can even be found in Sacred Scripture, when Our Lord taught that those who do not heed the Church should be treated as heathens and publicans.

Limbo of the Infants was actually dogmatically defined before EENS:

Catholic Encyclopedia does not say this is dogma.  In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine rejected it several hundred years later and tried to rehabilitate the Augustinian position.