See, but the OP says that she thinks it's the animals "destiny" to breed so they should live at least a year and get to breed once before being food. That makes it inherently linked to spay/neuter for pets.
And in addition spay/neuter carries other benefits such as being a massive prevention measure in certain cancers and neurological conditions leading to a healthier pet... And what if a non-spayed animal DOES have young because of the choice to leave them unspayed. It's not worth the risk.
I don't see how someone can claim a respect for people who face up to the fact that they are killing animals and respect the lives of the animals... And put thier own animals in a situation that could create death in thier respective populations. It was brought up as an example because the situations are very similar.
I mean, by denying your animals the "right" to breed - through either isolation or spay/neuter. Wouldn't that ultimately be denying that "destiny" of breeding whether you spay/neuter the animal or not? But if you DO allow your animal to breed - even just once, you're essentially killing however many offspring they produce... Possibly even thier own. So spay/neuter simple removes that possibility.
The two are pretty much inherently exclusive... Either it's OK to eat them early because they live a fufilling life without breeding or it's good to spay/neuter your pets to prevent further death... Similarly it's hypocritical to say that it's better to raise and butcher your own food and know that it's a difficult thing every time you have to eat to live rather then buying it from the meat faries at the grocery store when one consideres it the "destiny" of every animal to breed and will not sacrifice other animals for that cause.