Unicorn/Infant theory

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 10438

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, Teek <purdymango1 at y...> wrote:

> 
> But the theory gets shot down for the same reason the "Lily's
> sacrifice" theory doesn't completely cover all the bases - V. has
> killed hundreds of people before, and probably Harry isn't the first
> baby or young child to get in the way. Maybe though, the catch point
> is that V. set out specifically to kill Harry, and didn't just kill
> without regards to who he was harming. 

No, see - that's the whole point to my theory - it *does* cover the 
part about Voldy killing so many people, because the unicorn thing is 
about killing the unicorn specifically to save yourself.  If we 
believe (which I do at least for the purposes of this theory) that 
Voldemort wanted Harry dead because of some prophecy that he was 
going to defeat V., then Voldemort was trying to kill him 
specifically to save his own You-Know-What (the Unspeakable's 
unspeakables!), and *that* is the key element.  
If you kill something pure and defenseless specifically to save 
yourself, then you're up a creek, is what I think Firenze was saying.
Ok, so I'm liking my theory more as I defend it.  I still see that 
there are holes, but this was the main one I was trying to plug when 
I came up with the idea, and so far, I think it's standing up as well 
as any other theories I've tried.
Kimberly, who really really is going to bed now