This editorial on Mugglenet piqued my interest. What are everybody's thoughts on this?

I'm really torn on the issue.

Hmm... personally, I think the argument that requiring the potion amounts to not accepting werewolves is malarkey. It's taking the precaution that a person suffering from lycanthropy might hurt those around him. I'm sure werewolves who want to have families (or do have them) would want to have the potion available. Perhaps the best route to take would be for those with the skill to make the potion to do so and to make it available more readily so that werewolves would be able to keep from harming others.

That's the way I was leaning as well. . . but on the other hand it would continue to further the discrimination of the werewolves, which is rather tragic. . . that being said, it would save countless lives.

Here's another thought that I had (on a completely different topic). It may be a plothole (and a rather big and nasty one at that!) We all know that basilisk venom is one of the only things capable of destroying a horcrux. It is this fact that allow Ron, Harry and Hermione to destroy almost every horcrux that they encounter.

Harry was bitten by a basilisk in the chamber of secrets. . . so why wasn't the connection between he and Voldemort severed there and then?

Your mitose theory is brilliant and quite plausible in the content of the series. It's great the Rowling used her very real struggles with depression in her stories to create memorable 'monsters' and to help overcome her depression (or rather, work through it).

I like that explanation since it resonates with the tendency of depression to be infectious within a family. That is to say, a depressed person may be miserable him or herself, which makes other family members miserable and bewildered, which, in turn, tends to make the depressed person feel even worse. Especially if an initial trigger, such as the loss of a job, or difficulty finding a new one makes it even harder to cope without outside help.

werewolves who want to have families (or do have them) would want to have the potion available. Perhaps the best route to take would be for those with the skill to make the potion to do so and to make it available more readily so that werewolves would be able to keep from harming others.

Though taking one's medicine is the responsible thing to do, and yes, Remus Lupin did function well when he had the potion, that is not the only problem with a complaint like lycanthropy. There is the transmission/infection problem in the first place, and the chance that even a well-meaning werewolf will forget to take the potion when under stress or in an unexpected emergency.

There is also the fear the general public, whether muggle or wizard, continues to have of a disease of any sort, even non-infectious but debilitating diseases like epilepsy and asthma. Then there are the conscientious objectors who, fearing side effects from such a potion, disagree with administering it, no matter how necessary it is. And, in the wizarding world, there are others, like Fenrir Greyback, who positively glory in their condition and are quite happy to pass it on, if they can. As in the case of suffering depression, there needs to be support for the family of a werewolf, not just making werewolves take potions to keep them harmless.

Do you think a law implementing the mandatory use of the Wolfsbane potion should be passed? Why do you think it has not until now? Let us know in the comments below!

The laws and the attitudes to werewolves were discriminatory in the Wizarding World, and so changing laws to get affected wizards to take potions were not a priority for those legislators who didn't regard werewolves as even part human. Besides, there were probably other wizards like Gilderoy Lockhart, who claimed to have used the homomorphus charm to de-werewolf the Wagga Wagga Werewolf. The homorphus charm, if it is real, might be another possible cure for werewolfism, even though Gilderoy Lockhart was only good at charming lady admirers.

Harry was bitten by a basilisk in the chamber of secrets. . . so why wasn't the connection between he and Voldemort severed there and then?

All but one other of the horcruxes were encased in inanimate objects such as Hufflepuff's cup of plenty, Ravenclaw's crown of wisdom, or Tom Riddle's diary, so a direct stab with a basilisk tooth would settle the horcrux easily enough, though it would destroy the object as well. But Harry, who killed the basilisk with Gryffindor's sword, was a living person, would be poisoned by basilisk venom when he was bitten. In fact he was dying in the Chamber of Secrets and had to be revived by Fawkes, Dumbledore's phoenix, who shed tears onto the bite to heal him.

There could be a plothole in the story, I agree, but the final way to kill the Harrycrux was for Voldemort to AK Harry, thus killing his own bit of torn soul, rather than Harry, who remained protected by his mother's blood sacrifice, and Voldemort's actions in GOF at the Graveyard.

I hope that explains your question.

I would also argue that since Harry did not die in CoS (and so far as we know, death is required for a living Horcrux to be destroyed), the Horcrux remained intact. If he had died instead of being healed by Fawkes, he might have faced King's Cross-limbo in book two instead of book seven.

Let us examine the consequences for the entire series if Harry had died in COS:

1. Harry and Ginny would not have been freed from the COS for starters.
2. Harry did stab the Diary with the tooth in his arm, but with or without the horcrux of the diary, Voldemort would not have been defeated ultimately.
3. Sirius would have learned about the loss of Harry Potter, and therefore would not have had the motivation to escape Azkaban to protect him from Scabbers.

Can anyone think of anything else?

Well, my theory was that there would have still been some sort of limbo state waiting for Harry even if he had died in CoS (though I suppose theoretically that was prepared for him because he had "mastered" Death). In that case, he would still have faced the choice to go on or to return and keep fighting. Granted, if that had happened, Dumbledore would have had to explain a lot more a lot sooner.

I've only read the books all the way through twice, but I was under the impression that Harry was given the choice to go back not only because of the Horcrux but also because of Voldemort using his blood in GoF. Because Harry's blood was in Voldemort, he still had a tie to life, and he was the Master of Death because he had all of the Hallows.

The whole "blood protection" thing didn't make a ton of sense to me to begin with though. If Voldemort has Harry's blood in him and the protection no longer burns him, how does that affect the blood protection on the house? Shouldn't Voldemort just be able to walk right in? I'm probably missing something there.

That's true, Dot. I had forgotten about that part. (It's been a while since I've reread Deathly Hallows myself.)

As far as the blood protection goes, I think (though it's been a while since I've read GoF or DH, the two where that subject is expounded on the most I believe) that the house part has an added dimension to it similar to a Fidelius Charm, so that even though Voldy knew where Harry lived and could touch him without pain, he was unable to breach Harry's protection there because he wasn't welcome. I'm in the middle of a series reread right now, so I'll let you know if I have any insights once I've finished.

The whole "blood protection" thing didn't make a ton of sense to me to begin with though. If Voldemort has Harry's blood in him and the protection no longer burns him, how does that affect the blood protection on the house? Shouldn't Voldemort just be able to walk right in? I'm probably missing something there.

The blood tie to the house only worked because Petunia, Harry's aunt, and his mother's sister, was his last remaining blood relation and link to his mother, and also his legal guardian until Harry attained his Wizarding World majority at the age of 17, the same minimum age as when UK teenagers can join the defence forces. The terms of the blood protection was that so long as both he and Petunia could call 4 Privet Drive home Voldemort would be unable to go there.

The blood protection protected Harry from others, not only Voldemort. When Vernon Dursley tried to strangle Harry, he got burned, same as what happened to Quirrell at the beginning of the series. If Harry had been killed in COS as he nearly was in the first book, then he would not have been much use to Voldemort in GOF who wanted this blood protection removed. As Voldemort, himself, admitted, he could have taken the "Blood of an enemy, forcibly taken" from any amount of enemies to revivify himself, with a lot less trouble than he took to capture Harry.

As Dumbledore was aware, however, there were other protections which would help Harry defeat Voldemort. There was Harry's wand, for one, another was the nature of his scar, and when he learned a few spells and charms, such as the Patronus charm, he had a few more powers. After GOF, the blood Voldemort took, being Lily's blood, might protect himself from injury at Harry's hands, but it would always oppose Voldemort's evil to protect Harry, nonetheless. Sort of the counter to the Harrycrux. Apparently, the blood protection came about because she chose to shield her baby from being killed by Voldemort.

Poor Petunia. She was bitter against her sister, seemed none too fond of Harry, and agreed with Vernon rather too much. But she did persevere in sheltering Harry until he turned 17, even though her care of him was somewhat minimal, and it took a howler from Dumbledore to keep her doing it. That is some achievement if she wanted to stay married to Vernon Dursley.

When Vernon Dursley tried to strangle Harry, he got burned, same as what happened to Quirrell at the beginning of the series.

When did that happen? I recall Vernon being upset with Harry quite a bit, but this is something of which I have no recollection.

That explanation makes sense. Again, I need to reexamine the relevant sections of the books for myself, but that seems to cover what I had been thinking.

I don't remember that either, wagga.

We were rewatching OOTP last night, and I had a question (don't know where it came from ).

Why do you think Peter Pettigrew was placed in Gryffindor?

For the same reason Neville was: he had the potential for great courage. In Peter's case, however, he never seemed to have the opportunity to demonstrate that courage combined with the friends who would encourage him to do so (which Neville did have).

When did that happen? I recall Vernon being upset with Harry quite a bit, but this is something of which I have no recollection.

Yes Vernon was usually upset with Harry, and often manhandled him. But as he grew older he learned to talk his way out of some of these situations. The first chapter of OOtP contains the incident I was referring to, when a few things happened at once. Vernon found Harry under the window sill listening to the news, tried to strangle him and got burned a little when he did. This was when Mundungus Fletcher apparated away from Privet Drive.

I don't remember that either, wagga.

We were rewatching OOTP last night, and I had a question (don't know where it came from ).

Why do you think Peter Pettigrew was placed in Gryffindor?

Because he had the potential to be brave and the opportunity to do so as well. Instead he chose to betray his friends, revealing to Voldemort the Fidelius Charm, and framing Sirius for the deed.

I don't remember that either, wagga.

We were rewatching OOTP last night, and I had a question (don't know where it came from ).

Why do you think Peter Pettigrew was placed in Gryffindor?

This has been talked about at great length on the Mugglenet Alohamora forums - I fall into the camp that says he didn't really fit into any of the houses. He wasn't exactly cunning or ambitious, so Slytherin isn't a good fit. He certainly wasn't smart, so Ravenclaw is out. He definitely didn't value loyalty or justice, therefore he wouldn't belong in Hufflepuff. Gryffindors are known for their bravery, but that doesn't fit him either. My thought is that James and Sirius had befriended each other on the train (much like Harry & Ron did), Peter saw them, liked them and wanted to be in the same house they were. When Peter was sorted, Sirius would have already been put in Gryffindor - so I think that when the hat was placed on Peter's head he kept saying over and over, "please let me be in Gryffindor!" And since he didn't belong anywhere else, the hat accommodated him.