IM YourOnlyOne

I'm sorry but YJS set them up to fail in the basketball game when he chose who goes out instead of the Whenever Friend. The guest would've picked YeJin as the most logical choice.

The rule is the Whenever Friend is the one who'll pick.

No offense, but that was very unfair. He decreased their chances of winning. Even YeJin volunteered because she understood what's at stake and the situation. It was like YJS didn't want them to win.

If the Whenever Friend chose YJS, then it was on them. But YJS insisted he goes out, so it was his decision as the host and not by the Whenever Friend.

I was very disappointed by that. The poor kids should be compensated.

The funny thing is, the more some people complain, the more new audiences it is gaining. They're just making everyone curious and see for themselves so they can decide independently.

Their objective in destryoing this show is doing the opposite. 😆

As is often said in marketing, "bad publicity is good marketing".

See! It's popular elsewhere too!

Thank you for sharing! 🙇🏽

I think this just proves that MDL is US-centric. I mean, even the issues commonly complained about are often found or heard from a USA perspective, since the many social issues they have there are usually not big issues elsewhere, especially in Pacific-Asia.

I mean, you'll rarely see Pacific-Asians complaining and making a big issue of things like disabilities and LGBTQ being included in TV shows or movies. In the US, they call it "woke" and complain too much.

LOL. In Pacific-Asia being "woke" is being awake about the corruption in the government and lies of big corporations, not about social issues. So much disconnect. And if one has social issues, we go to the streets to rally, not complain about a fictional show or movie including it.

They did not guilt trip the mother other than the defense attorney. The chairman did not, no one else did. Not even the writers. That scene was there to develop the character of that defense attorney they keep on meeting in courts.

The mother's rare appearance is itself a sign that the plot isn't questioning her decision to have an abortion because the plot is about the kid's interpretation of his life.

Even his own mother disagreed with his view. She cried not because she regretted her decision to abort him, no, she cried because she realized how grave her son's misunderstanding is and how she was sending the wrong messages to him.

In fact, the entire case was about that interpretation of the kid, her decision to abort was very minor to it.

If her decision to abort was truly as simple as "unwanted pregnancy" she would've pursued it no matter what. There are a lot of ways to get a failed pregnancy. Bet she clearly did not. She also did not give up. Her heart just isn't truly into it, she made that choice based on logical conclusions:
1. She can't imagine the life she can give her child
2. She knew she will never leave the child in an adoption center the way her mother did to her

She loves her child even during her early pregnancy. Just what all mothers do.

Her decision to abort was not the one in question, and not once did they show or hint that she regretted it—because there was nothing to regret—but it was all about the view of her son, and how she unknowingly sent the wrong signals to him.

She loves him so much that in pained her to finally realized she made her son conclude things such as,."it would've been better if he was not born so his mom won't go through pain and hardship". No mother, not even a father, will agree to such a conclusion. Even those parents who show outwardly that they supposedly hate their kids, they're lying to their teeth. In private, they are silently crying why they're hating their kids when the truth is they love them so much.

That ms what the chairman figured out when the kid talked to him and when he realized he was the Go player he was playing with. He acknowledged the kid's intelligence but also realized that because he still is a kid, he still can not process the complexities of life.

In the end,the kid also realized he misunderstood his mother. He realized his mother never hated him. He realized that his mother is actually happy she gave birth to him. And he realized his mother could've left him in an orphanage if she wanted to.

Now, as for the chairman still standing on his beliefs, that was expected. If he changed his stance, then he is a total fake. It was because he stood firm that the Pro Bono team, especially the ML and FL, understood that he was genuine with his offer.

Why? Because the ML challenged his beliefs and tried to frame it as the indirect reason why the hospital under his group refused to give the mother an abortion.

If he changed his belief, then it means he's doing it just to save his face. But because he stood firm and offered a hand, it showed that he is a reasonable person and he truly had no hand with the decision of.the hospital. That it was clear he never sanctioned anything about what the ML was trying to paint.

Even his statement was genuine. He wants to prove to the kid that his life is precious. He never said nor imply that his mother made a wrong decision to have an abortion. He respects abortion, he was only campaining to choose life, that's all. He'll adopt them as his family, and no doubt as heir, even though the kid has proven he has a contrasting view.

The chairman simply realized that the case isn't about abortion, the case is about a little kid who concluded that his life is not worth it. Which, again, even his own mother deeply disagreed with.

No.

Here's a copy-paste of my reply in another thread.

---

Let's talk about the show itself.

The mother chose abortion because:
1. She couldn't imagine what kind of life she could give her child
2. She didn't want to repeat the trauma of abandonment she experienced when her own mother left her in an adoption centre.

She did not choose abortion out of hatred or an intention to murder. She wasn't running away. She is a good person.

Years later, she cried in court while listening to her son—not because she regretted considering abortion, but because she realised she had unintentionally sent him the wrong message, making him believe she hated him.

She never hated her son. She loved him deeply. She worked an honest, difficult job for him, just as she still loves the mother who never came back for her.

When abortion was no longer an option, she carried him to full term, gave birth, nursed him, and raised him—despite his paralysis. If she truly didn't love him, she would have abandoned him after birth. She did not.

Her son, intelligent but still emotionally limited, misunderstood her actions. She didn't resent him for his disability. If anything, she was quietly thankful she kept him, because he became her lifeline against depression.

That is why she cried—not out of regret for her choice back then, but out of pain for being misunderstood by the person she loved most. Because she herself understood her mother's decision, but in her case as a mother, she finally understood she failed to send the right signals.

Not really. The Philippines is well-known to having the highest consumption of Korean stuff, and this show is very popular and well accepted here.

What you see in MDL is not a representation of the International hallyu fanbase, far from it. For one, there are only a very handful few of us Filipinos here, and of those, still even fewer who are active in comments. 😆

(I'm not saying there are no negative comments at all, but it isn't as bad as is visible here in MDL. And we're good in shutting them down in our own groups.)

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with having PWD representation? As a PWD myself, I welcomed it.

Let's talk about the show itself.

The mother chose abortion because:
1. She couldn't imagine what kind of life she could give her child
2. She didn't want to repeat the trauma of abandonment she experienced when her own mother left her in an adoption centre.

She did not choose abortion out of hatred or an intention to murder. She wasn't running away. She is a good person.

Years later, she cried in court while listening to her son—not because she regretted considering abortion, but because she realised she had unintentionally sent him the wrong message, making him believe she hated him.

She never hated her son. She loved him deeply. She worked an honest, difficult job for him, just as she still loves the mother who never came back for her.

When abortion was no longer an option, she carried him to full term, gave birth, nursed him, and raised him—despite his paralysis. If she truly didn't love him, she would have abandoned him after birth. She did not.

Her son, intelligent but still emotionally limited, misunderstood her actions. She didn't resent him for his disability. If anything, she was quietly thankful she kept him, because he became her lifeline against depression.

That is why she cried—not out of regret for her choice back then, but out of pain for being misunderstood by the person she loved most. Because she herself understood her mother's decision, but in her case as a mother, she finally understood she failed to send the right signals.

Comparing abortion to crimes like theft, rape, or murder removes the mother from the equation, which is the most critical factor.

Crimes involve one person acting against another:
- Theft: Person A steals from Person B.
- Rape: Person A violates Person B.
- Murder: Person A kills Person B.


Abortion, however, is a decision a mother makes about her own body, often under extreme circumstances, including cases where her life is at risk. It is not about violating someone else's body or property.

Stopping a thief has nothing to do with abstract beliefs. People act or don't act based on immediate risk and circumstance, not moral philosophy. Most people won't risk their lives for strangers in floods or disasters, even if they believe that "all life is precious". Survival comes first.

That distinction matters. Unlike crimes, abortion allows time for reflection, intention, and medical considerations.

If abortion is murder, then self-defense would also be murder. Yet we don't see it that way because intention matters. Self-defense is not murder unless there is intent to kill.

So the real question is this: Are mothers choosing abortion intending to murder?

Practically none do. Most experience pain, grief, and conflict, even when the pregnancy is unwanted or medically dangerous. Biology and psychology make this far from an easy choice.

Abortion only becomes murder if intent to kill can be proven—just as in existing laws. Otherwise, it is closer to survival decisions recognised by both law and religion, such as the real-life «Alive» case, where people ate the dead to survive and were not punished.

Good intentions don't excuse stealing because stealing harms someone else. A mother choosing abortion is not taking from another person's body or life in the same way.

So the comparison is not accurate.

Re: Don't eat rice when in places like this! (Buffet)

CORRECT! When you're in a buffet, never eat rice or rice cakes.

In a buffet, or catering, pick the healtiest food you can find and eat only those. That's how you'll get more than you paid for.

Buffet restaurants love it when people eat rice and rice-based food, as well as, less healthier options. Why? Because those are more affordable and customers will get full faster. The ones on the losing end are the customers because they didn't "break even", and even if they do, the customers only forced themselves and will more likely feel the effects later.

Buffet or catering = only eat the healthiest food available, repeatedly. That's how you get more than what you paid for.

---

Of course, there's nothing wrong with eating rice, if that's what you really want. But we generally eat in buffet restaurants for the unlimited food and experience at an affordable price. Something we normally can't do at home or in other places.

LOL. I knew the rice won't get cooked correctly when they decided to add more water.

Here's the thing with rice, if you add more water late, it's game over. It's better if you don't add any. Or, use the rice to cook another dish.

Noooo! You'll be missed, Daniel!

Thank you for the laughter you provided. 🙇🏽

Apologies, but it is people like you that is making everyone else who reads the same Bible—even if they don't share your beliefs and interpretations—look bad and hated.

1. Yes, it is your right. But did you produce it? No. Did you invest in it? No. Were you in any way involved in the creation process of the show? No. Then your right doesn't apply in this case. You are only an audience.

Yes, yes, you can complain. But at least get your complaints correct.

2. Sex before marriage … doing it for your pleasure

Woah. Hold your horses down! It was very obvious that the mother did not do it for her own pleasure! The father was obviously a who just wanted to get under her pants then left her. She was a young teenager who didn't know any better.

And even if she indeed did it for her own pleasure, so what? Who are you to judge anyone who wants to have sex outside of marriage?

You want to drag "Christ" and religion?

- Your "Christ" said that if you undress a person in your mind, you're committing sin already. That it is no different from doing the deed.

Are you telling the world you never did that? Or, not doing it anymore? Are you really really sure about that? Not even in your dreams? Not even innocent wishes?

Can you categorically say "NO, I haven't undress anyone in my mind ever, not in my dreams, not with innocent wishes"?

- What's your stand on a man having multiple wives (a.k.a. poligyny)? You'll probably say it is a sin.

Well, let me break it to you, you will never find a single verse disallowing polygyny. What was disallowed was polyandry (woman with multiple husbands). In fact, there are verses supporting polygyny.

Have you truly read your holy text?

- What is your stand on eating pork and unclean animals?

If you're going to say that "Christ" abolished that law, well, once again you're categorically wrong. This "Christ" never said nor imply anything about abolishing the Food Dietary Laws, on the contrary, He reaffirmed it strongly.

Oh, and don't cite Peter's dream because Peter himself explained that his dream has nothing to do with the Kosher Law. Peter knew people will misinterpret his dream.and use it to justify eating unclean animals.

So, again, did you really read your holy text?

---

If you are going to drag the Book compilation called the Bible, and religion, make sure you can defend your beliefs and interpretations. If not, then don't drag it.

Trust me, the more you truly understand this "Bible" the less you will act the way you have acted.

Do you know why LGBTQ is fine in Israel? (Although not yet SSM.) It's because they understand their own holy text. Their holy text is part of the "Bible". Don't tell me you know better than them? Them, the "Chosen People"?

People who confesses they read the "Bible" and still imposes their belief on others, are actually people who don't know anything about the "Bible". Your "Christ" never taught to impose your beliefs on others and to act the way you just did. It's very clear you don't know anything about your own G-d.

I think that's pretty much all of it?

I hope it helped!

Again, those were based only up to E12. The last two episodes are 4 days away when I wrote this.

1. She had a very traumatic experience. She was ordered to drink poison after she was accused of infidelity. Leaving her young son, the 2ML, alone in a very ruthless place.

2. She had no idea the Minister had plans (assuming he revived her or toned down the poison).

3. In modern Science, brain cells starts to die by the 4-minute mark. Then permanent brain damage starts to spread by the 9-minute mark.

It is highly possible that it took the Minister 9 minutes before he was able to give her the medicine to wake her or counter the poison. (He can't just take the body, for example.) So, when she came back from the dead, there were already permanent brain damage here and there.

4. She did not show any recognition and reaction that she is not in the palace.

5. She thinks the one she's holding is her baby (the 2ML), yet when the camera panned, what she was holding were only blankets rolled together to make it appear a baby. In modern times, they're given a baby doll.

6. The Minister lamented that she will never come back to him. He understood that her brain was damaged.

7. The Minister did not acknowledge that there is a baby. A sane person would. It hints that he is aware it was just empty blankets rolled to look like a baby.

8. The baby did not make any sounds or showed movements.

9. When she tried to give a letter to the 1FL, it was a hint that she still had moments when her sanity returns. Maybe she still does and is pretending because she learned the cruelty of her "friend".

10. In modern Science, we learned that when humans experience traumatic events, our brain can choose to enter self-preservation mode. The former queen, as mentioned earlier, experienced a very traumatic experience. This could've led to why she's stuck in a her nursing days and why she isn't recognizing that she is not in the palace.

Basically, her brain is protecting her from reliving that veri traumatic experience by making her believe everything is okay and that she is just in another part of the palace, with her son. Remember, her last vision was her son holding her as she dies. That's very traumatic for a loving parent, especially for mothers.


---


Q: Is it possible that there could be twists?
A: Of course. But they'll probably keep it to a minimum since there are only two episodes left.

If they make the former queen's fate more complex, it will dominate at least a single episode, leaving less roomto tackle the two main plots: the Minister, and the fate of the 1ML and 1FL who has been reincarnated multiple times because forces kept on separating them. (It's like Fate got tired and said, "You know what? I'll intervene and make sure they finish their love story in this life, I don't want to see another season of these two.")

Q: What if the baby is real?
A: Then that's a huge scandal. And even if the 2ML is truly the son of the murdered king, and that baby is a new baby, it will still likely end up requiring death or exile for the former queen, her status won't be reinstated either, and the 2ML will have to choose between giving up his rank and status to be with her always, or, keep it a secret and can only visit his mother occasionally and in secret. It is much better that the baby isn't real.

Q: What if the father of the 2ML is the Minister?
A: An even bigger scandal that will likely result in wiping out the entire clan of the Minister and the former Queen, including the 2ML.

Q: What if the 2ML and 2FL are half-siblings?
A: Same as above, they'll likely get killed because it proves that the former queen was already pregnant before she was married to the king. The queen mother will definitely be very happy about it because her suspicions turned-out to be true.

Q: But what if the 2FL was adopted?
A: It's possible. The second couple still have a chance to be together. IF the 1ML and the his father can protect them. Because again, if these secrets come out, lives will definitely be taken, the Minister most especiallyi and his entire clan.

Q: What if the former queen was faking it?
A: It is possible. In the 1FL's flashback, the former queen (although she had no idea who she was) handed her a letter which the guy guarding her immediately snatched back. If she was able to write that, either she still has episodes of sanity, or she is indeed faking it. The former queen probably also knew who the 1FL was and she intentionally handed her the letter—again assuming she has episodes of sanity or is faking it.

Re: The Lady in White (a.k.a. former queen, a.k.a. mother of 2ML)

Just to gather all information in ine place.

If you have questions about it, then check below.

Nope. The fake baby is not symbolic, the former queen is mentally stuck in a time period when she was still nursing the 2ML.

The hints were:
1. The Minister said she'll never come back to him. He understood that she's mentally unstable.
2. The former queen did die but later came back from the dead.

In modern Science, we know that if a person is clinically dead, brain cells start to die by 4-minute mark. Then by the 9-minute mark, permanent brain damage starts to spread.

If we consider the rituals and slowness of palace in treating people who were ordered to drink poison, it probably took at least 9 minutesto get her body somewhere away from prying eyes. By that time, whatever medicine the Minister gave her, it was too late, permanent brain damage already set in.

3. The former queen was not acting like a sane person. She did not recognize nor react that the place she is living is not her home nor the palace. As far as her brain is concerned, she is either in her home or some place within the palace walls. Her own mind is tricking her as a self-protection mechanism—this has been observed in people with very traumatic experiences.

Speaking of very traumatic experiences, her drinking the poison without knowing that the Minister has plans to save her, was a very traumatic experience, probably one of the worst there is a human can ever face, especially a mother leaving a young child.

Thus, her brain is potentially tricking her as self-preservation so she won't remember her very traumatic experience.

LOL! That's the best description I've read recently, and from a kababayan at that. 😆

- The murdered king, the son of the queen mother, is the husband of the 2ML's mother, which made her queen. A.k.a. The Lady in White.
- The current puppet king's wife / queen is the mother of 1ML that the 1FL was accused of assassinating.

The baby is fake.

- It wasn't moving
- It wasn't making any sounds
- It's covered entirely
- The Minister did not acknowledge that there is a baby - a sane person, especially if it is their kid, would acknowledge the presence of the baby

What she was holding was more likely her getting stuck in the time period she was nursing the 2ML.

Recall that she was poisoned. She was also under duress because she knew she'll be ending her life and she will leave the 2ML alone who was still a kid.

But, it turns out she survived and returned from the dead.

In modern science, we know that if a person is clinically dead for at least 9 minutes, permaneet brain damage sets in. Brain cells starts to die at 4-minute mark.

Considering how long it took them to move the former queen's body, she was probably clinically dead between 4–9 minutes. By the time she returned from the dead, brain damage already did its worst.

Maybe the Minister gave her a low dosage. Or, maybe, he gave her a different herb that mimics death but it requires they be revived, and it took him time to revive and hide her. = Brain damage.

Again, this is only based on what they have shown us up to Episode 12. They could suddenlymake a twist that there is literally a live baby in that scene. Or, the former queen was faking her condition because she learned how dangerous her "friend" is.

Take for example the letter she tried to hand to the 1FL when she accidentally cross paths with her. A person not in their right mind wouldn't write that letter and knowingly and desperately give it to someone. She probably knew who the 1FL was. But the guard snatched the letter so fast, her plan failed.