While I'm here, I heard this nonsense how if a baby is killed in odium fidei it somehow makes it receive baptism of blood. I guess you're the best person to find the earliest reference to something like that Geremia so it'd be great if you could.

Before one reaches the age of reason, that person cannot possibly be saved unless they have received the actual sacrament of baptism.

Neither had the Holy Innocents reached the age of reason.

I'm sorry, but exactly how did any members of this family die for Christ?  Exactly how are they "martyrs"?

The child wasn’t unborn.  It was born. It’s right there in the article you linked to:

“The boy had been incorrectly described in some news reports as the first unborn child to be beatified, a key detail that the Vatican recently clarified.”

But was the child baptised?

The child wasn’t unborn.  It was born. It’s right there in the article you linked to:

“The boy had been incorrectly described in some news reports as the first unborn child to be beatified, a key detail that the Vatican recently clarified.”

Yes, according to "the Vatican", "The seventh Ulma child to die was the couple’s unnamed son, who was in the process of being born."

So, supposedly the "martyrdoms" occurred just as she was giving birth.  Can this be verified? Because I don't believe it.

Yes, according to "the Vatican", "The seventh Ulma child to die was the couple’s unnamed son, who was in the process of being born."

So, supposedly the "martyrdoms" occurred just as she was giving birth.  Can this be verified? Because I don't believe it.

And why would anyone care if you believed it or not? Are you the magisterium or just some idle busy body with too much time on their hands? 

  What utter nonsense!  Do you know ANYTHING about how such processes actually worked before the Robber Church took over, strong-armed and mind-f*cked the entire formerly-Catholic world (Cooties-19, anyone?) and made a mockery of all things Roman Catholic???

Such a baptism would actually need to be supported by hard evidence.  Contrary to your assertion, no one would need to prove a negative to object.  All sane and reasonably informed Catholics, within Traddieland and without, vehemently object to just about every single "canonization" of the V2 "Popes" and the very process thereof.  Like all they've touched, they've made a mockery of it.

There are numerous false assumptions in your comment. First, you are assuming that Traddieland is in charge of the investigation and the canonization and process, and therefore must be presented with proof of the baptism. That’s your first error. Second, you are assuming that an unbaptized baby cannot die as a martyr after baptism became obligatory, according to the general order, whereas St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the church, taught the contrary.  Since your opinion vs. his is worth nothing, it wouldn’t even be a factor under consideration.  Your third error is assuming that your criteria must be met for the child to be in heaven, namely, that he was previously baptized, in which case baptism would have to be proven during the canonization process.

Based on all these false assumptions, you conclude that you personally, a nobody on a forum, could object to the canonization on the basis that the child was not baptized, even though you would have know why of knowing if this criteria, which you think is necessary (actual baptism), wasn’t actually met.

What you need to realize that you aren’t the magisterium, and no conclusions you’ve reached based on your private interpretation of snippets you’ve read from magisterial docuмents matters one bit.  In the grand scheme of things, what you think means nothing, and the fact that you think it does is a bit frightening.