Why boycott Wendy's if you don't oppose foster care adoption?
Awhile ago a question was asked about Wendy's restaurant chain, and several people said they boycotted it because The Dave Thomas Foundation promotes adoption. I found that confusing, because the Foundation clearly ONLY supports foster care adoption, and some of the people who said they boycott also frequently recommend people adopt from foster care because "those children need homes."
The first three things you'll find on the Foundation's website:
"Finding Forever Families for Children in Foster Care"
"If not now, when? Children are waiting. With your help we can find a family for every child in foster care."
"Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is a nonprofit 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to dramatically increasing the adoptions of the more than 150,000 children waiting in North America's foster care systems."
So... what gives with the boycott? The organization is pretty clear on their goals-- what I quoted is literally the first things on their website-- and most people here allegedly don't oppose foster care adoption. In fact, we (including me) recommend foster care adoption all the time.
So... why are some people on this site boycotting a foundation that AGREES with you? Can someone explain the logic?
2009-02-10T00:05:52Z
Red Elephants, it was quite awhile ago, so I'm not surprised it isn't fresh in your memory. I'm not sure exactly when it was asked, but I think it was sometime in the autumn-- perhaps October or November? I have no idea why it suddenly came back into my head, aside from the fact I tend to have strange thoughts while cooking...
Theresa2009-02-10T05:56:02Z
Favorite Answer
Like a lot of foundations, the Dave Thomas Foundation started off with good intentions but fell victim to fragmentation of it's original goal.
While finding homes for children in foster care still is a high priority, the foundation has added additional goals that are not keeping with it's original intent.
The addition of the Adoption Friendly Workplace I find offensive. Why are only adoptive parents given benefits? What about adoptees and mothers of adoption loss? Shouldn't we be entitled to claim our legal fees, court filing fees, state mandated confidential intermediary fees, state-run registry fees as adoption tax credits? Shouldn't we be entitled to paid days off when we need to travel to the state of our adoption and grovel before a judge to ask if we can pretty-please have our birth certificates?
The Foundation promotes National Adoption Month but neglects to mention once that these kids from foster care grow up to be adults who should be treated equally.
If the Foundation kept to it's original intent - finding homes for children in Foster Care, then I could support it. If they wish to add additional goals, the only goals I would support would be to raise awareness of the lifelong impact of adoption, not celebrating adoption or giving a pat on the back to corporations who pay adoptive parents.
But Wendy's still has a killer grilled chicken salad.
I support foster care adoptions 100%. My state has underwent a lot of reforms in the past 40 years --and that's why I agree. I have known a FEW cases where I had second thoughts. I do not believe in long term foster care---it is a form of limbo for the children and many have expressed that same sentiment to me. They no longer belong to their birth family and they are not ours either. Adoption does give them a seance of identity. I remember vividly the years of long term faster placement and I hope never to see that again. Yes it is best to keep siblings together if it can be done or at least have some form of contact after the adoption ---which I believe is rarely done. One of the problems ---the big problem---when it comes to keeping kids together is the LACK OF FOSTER HOMES. And there are too many people just not interested--and some interested for the wrong reasons. And when 4 kids are placed in 4 different homes in foster care and two years down the road these kids become available for adoption----and if each family is interested in adopting the child they have----then that is what happens---99% of the time. They all don't go to one home---no way. In an ideal world kids would never leave their home but it's not an ideal world. And there are not enough homes to keep them altogether--- I would like that too.
I don't really boycott anything because I don't see the point in it. I realize the Dave Thomas Foundation supports adoption, but I did know that their focus was more on foster care adoption. Either way, Wendy's is the only place I can go to get a baked potato and cesar side salad within five minutes. I don't think they'd notice if I stopped eating there so to do so would only hurt me.
I did not know about this, and it does make me glad to hear that there is a business that actually want to further things like this. But what does annoy me is that people would boycott Wendy's because they thought it had to do with adoptions not just foster adoptions. I totally understand the need to find homes for children in foster care. If I had not been adopted as an infant, I would have been in foster care. But why is it that people will shop at stores that give money to places like planned parenthood that actually abort babies, but would boycott a restaurant that gives money to adoption of ANY kind. Kind of a mixed up world, isn't it?
How silly. They likely did not see foster care. Or they think, as Gaii expressed, that people might see adoption as a good thing.
Well frankly, children who need families and get families is a good thing. Yes, you I and everyone else knows adoption comes from loss, but in the case of foster care the loss already occurred, thus making foster care adoption, and a child having a forever family, a good thing.