MORE thoughts on 'you can't hurt a baby'

[theredshoes86]

No: HPFGUIDX 109889

Everyone's comments were really interesting, it had never crossed my mind that 
Herminone just wanted to save time... but I still believe that she meant that there was a REASON why people, not just Harry can't hurt babies.

"pentzouli" <pentzouli at y...>
wrote:
> So, my immediate thought was that this particular phrase had one
> and only purpose : to prevent Harry from both losing time and stamina
> by casting spells here and there.

Somehow, my perception was just the opposite... a spell would have just taken 
a second.  AND, even though the Death Eater's head was a baby and incapable of rational thoughts, Rowling writes, "his thick arms flailed dangerously in all directions, narrowly missing Harry" (ootp, 791, US hard cover edition)  therefore, we cannot say that the death eater was not dangerous and not worth stunning.  


> Asian_lovr2:
>
> Personally, I would have stunned that 'baby head' in the blink of an
> eye. He may have had the brain of a baby but he still had the body
> and strength of a full grown man, he could have still done harm


THEREFORE,  Herminone's reason for preventing Harry from stunning the Death Eater must have been something other than saving time.

I didn't find Hermione's comment so much as out of character as an extremely unusual proposal at that point in time... I think Harry felt it was unusual too, because he could have stunned the Death Eater in a second and they would have gone on their way.  

I agree with Neisha Saxena in thinking that this has to do with innocence.  

Neisha Saxena:
>We see a number of characters close to Dumbledore save
>or attempt to save small children -- Lily Potter tries
>to save Harry, Harry saves Fleur Delacour's small
>sister, Arthur Weasley helps save the small muggle
>children from the Death Eater torture in GOF, Firenz
>saves Harry in Sorcerors/Philosophers Stone against
>the wishes of his fellow centaurs.

>And, of course, the centaurs specifically state that
>they do not hurt foals.

<snip>

>How children, unicorns, house elves and others not
>able to defend themselves are treated is a reflection
>of one's character, Sirius says so himself in the cave
>in GOF when Hermione talks about how Barty Crouch
>treated his house elf.

I think it definately ties in with the 'choices' theme...  "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."  (CoS, 333, US paperback) 

Neisha Saxena:
>We also see characters close to Voldemort go after
>children, for example: Voldemort himself goes after
>both Harry and Ginny Weasley, Bellatrix LeStrange
>wants to torture Ginny and does torture Neville, the
>death eaters torture muggle children for fun at the
>Quidditch World Cup.

I think Hermione figured something out.  Once she sees the head changing from adult to baby and baby to adult and back again, Rowling writes "'It's time,' said Hermione in an awestruck voice. 'Time...'" (ootp, 791, US hardcover) and the last 'time' is in italics... meaning that there is a significance on the word time.  

SO, maybe Hermione wasn't just surprized at the appalling sight, MAYBE she 
made a connection between time, innocence, and Harry's own past when Voldemort's powers were reduced to nothing because he hurt something as innocent and pure as a baby???

Maybe?


~LAURA