Harry the Defender Was Re: Harry Vanquishing LV without killing him

[lagattalucianese]

No: HPFGUIDX 146572

> 
> I have something of a moral quandary about Harry not killing 
> Voldemort. Let's assume the Snape is completely on the "Good" side 
> (i.e. allied with Dumlbedore and Harry and co.). Now Sanpe was 
> willing, from a certain point of view, to kill Dumbledore for a 
plan 
> that "may" have helped bring about Voldemort's final defeat...
> 
> Quick_Silver (rambling and incoherent at this time in the morning

> saying sorry for posting twice but I'm slow tonight)
> 
La Gatta Lucianese:

One situation in which Harry killing Voldemort might be morally 
acceptable:

One argument for DDM!Snape killing Dumbledore is that Dumbledore is 
dying, in pain, has begged Snape to kill him, and that in addition to 
rescuing Draco and getting the Death Eaters out of Hogwarts, Snape's 
act is an act of mercy.

If Voldemort is reduced, through the destruction of his horcruxes, to 
an almost powerless, almost soulless monster (or even completely 
powerless and completely soulless, if he has received the timely 
attention of a Dementor), might not it be an act of mercy for Harry 
to kill him, rather than condemn him to go on living in that 
condition? I can't quite picture the Dark Lord whispering, "Please, 
Harry...", but one supposes it is possible.

And now some random ramblings on souls and living and dying:

We know that it is possible for a body to go on living once the soul 
has been removed from it (PoA.12):

"'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
twisted smile. 'It's what dementors do to those the wish to destroy 
utterly. I suppose there must be some kind of mouth under there, 
because the clamp their jaws upon the mouth of the victim and--and 
suck out his soul.'
'What--they kill--?'
'Oh, no,' said Lupin, 'Much worse than that. You can exist without 
your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still 
working. But you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, 
no...anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll just--
exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone forever...lost.'"

Given that the body can survive, in a way, without the soul, let's 
trot back to my pet theory about reverse horcruxes. Let us suppose 
that the soul can be removed from a badly injured body and stored in 
some safe receptacle or host until the body can be restored. As for 
example, a phoenix. Since the soul is residing in a benevolent host 
and not a Dementor, it is not "gone forever...lost", merely stored in 
a safe place until the body can be restored, as for example with the 
tears of a phoenix (CoS.12, CoS.17).

Now just as it takes a powerful Dark Wizard to create a true horcrux, 
surely it takes a powerful White Wizard to create a reverse horcrux, 
to remove the soul from the body without damaging it and transfer it 
to a suitable host for safekeeping. A Wizard who is an expert on 
Defense Against the Dark Arts. A Wizard with the skill to override a 
killing curse with...something else. A Wizard who is, perhaps, the 
only one in the world who knows how to perform this enchantment 
(HBP.27):

"'We need to get you up to the school, sir...Madam Pomfrey...'
'No," said Dumbledore. 'It is Professor Snape whom I need....But I do 
not think...I can walk very far just yet....'
'Right--sir, listen--I'm going to knock on a door, find a place you 
can stay--then I can run and get Madam--'
'Severus,' said Dumbledore clearly. 'I need Severus....'"

We know that Dumbledore's physical injuries are not fatal. Some bones 
are broken, but broken bones are no big deal in the Wizarding World. 
Harry spent one night in the hospital completely regrowing the bones 
in his right arm, and that was only because that idiot Lockhart tried 
to mend a broken arm instead of letting Madam Pomfrey perform a 
simple fix (Cos.10). Otherwise (HBP.28):

"Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms 
and legs, he might have been sleeping."

Nothing a phoenix's tears couldn't heal, if they can overcome the 
effects of a basilisk's poison.

Snape's fury at Harry in the "DO NOT CALL ME COWARD" scene (HBP.28) 
could have been fueled by a number of things: The difficulty and 
stress of performing the spell in the first place; the fear that he 
might have gotten it wrong and actually killed Dumbledore; the 
uncertainty he faces until he can somehow ditch Draco and get back to 
finish the enchantment, if that is what he still has to do, get 
Dumbledore healed with Fawkes' help, get Dumbledore's soul back into 
his body, and get Dumbledore and Fawkes (and himself) safely on their 
way to wherever they are variously going. He's had a rough day. I 
think I would yell at Harry too, under the circumstances.

One final note on thestrals, and the possibility that a thestral is 
Snape's Patronus, and perhaps also his Animagus form: Hagrid on the 
bad reputation thestrals have (OotP.21):

"'But they're really, really unlucky,' interrupted Parvati, looking 
alarmed. 'They're supposed to bring all sorts of horrible misfortune 
on people who see them. Professor Trelawney told me once--'
'No, no, no,' said Hagrid, chuckling, 'tha's just superstition, that 
is, they aren't unlucky, they're dead clever and useful!...'"

As Snape has proven to be on numerous occasions, as outlined in 
Amanda's post #146324, all the while Harry is thinking him evil. I've 
already quoted Harry's reversal of feeling about the thestrals in 
OotP.33: "How could he ever have thought them ugly?"