The Scaly Flaky Baby

Damage- but not neccessarily a seperate shard. I think damage is healable and not definitively permanent unless you actually make a Horcrux, because then what seperates anyone who has killed from Voldemort? Because I do think there is quite a large difference.

Of course there's a big difference. But this ain't it.

"By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion..."

This reminds me of our old argument.
Harry Potter Chat > The Wizarding World > The Restricted Section of the Library > Year VII: Deathly Hallows
"Harry Has A Horacrux Too"
Anyway,
Slughorn was clear.
The "torn portion" already exists when the wizard chooses to encase the torn portion.

Of course they're different. But you're changing the subject.
Pick one.

I think Molly Weasley's primary intention is to protect her familiy. But in that situation the only way she can do so is to kill Bellatrix. So she intends to protect first. And the advantage is the life of her children.

I agree with everything, but not with the "healable". I know the story changes in DH, and we see it now from a different point of view, but even though, I still think that Dumbledore, beside his own plan with Snape and everything, before he dies, really means what he says to Malfoy, and one reason for a lot of things going on, and also for some points in his "plan" is, that he wants to protect Malfoy from killing someone. I think until his death he wants to believe in the "good side" in Draco. But he knows that once he has killed someone his soul would be damaged and the "good side" in him will be lost.
Maybe that is also one reason that he chose Snape. Not only because he is a double-agent. I think Snapes soul is already damaged. From his time as a Death-Eater he has to handle whith it.

There is sense in what both of you are saying. Killing rips a soul, cannot deny that. The soul may be ripped but stays in the body as such, I think.

If a horcrux itself can be repaired through sincere repentance, why not a soul that is ripped but not separated into horcruxes?

DH, Chapter 33, page 683: "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said Dumbledore. "I would not have it ripped apart on my account."
"And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"
"You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore. "I ask this one great favor of you, Severus, because death is coming for me..."

If Snape's soul was already damaged, why wasn't the "good side" in HIM lost? And if Snape can redeem himself, why can't Draco?

page 707 "You cannot help." (Dumbledore said)
page 708 "Something that is beyond either of our help," said Dumbledore.

page 741 "It's your one last chance," said Harry, "It's all you've got left.. I've seen what you'll be otherwise... Be a man... try for some remorse..."

It's not working. It makes no sense. Was Harry mistaken? Or Dumbledore? Or was Rowling confused? Or did she paint herself into a corner, threw down some convoluted nonsense to get herself out, and hope that none of us would notice?