Domesticated animals have been bred to the point that they usually need people to take care of them, especially dogs.
Cats are more like their original wild ancestors, so that's why they revert to their "wild" (feral) state much more readily than dogs.
The wild is a dangerous, hostile place, full of horrible diseases and predators. I had tick fever once--it was horrible. Imagine how horrible it would be for an animal who got, say, distemper or rabies, diseases which are easily controlled by vaccinations given to pets.
It's a sad state for pets who have to face the wild.
Pets are pleasant companions, non-humans who somehow find a place in our families.
Yeah, sure, it would be terrible if you treated a human like a pet.
But they're HUMANS. You can't make that comparison--animals are not human. Animals can't get themselves medical care. They can feed themselves to some extent, but not without quite a bit of effort. They have to scrabble for food and shelter, sometimes while pregnant or lactating, which makes them weaker and more vulnerable.
They face predators both large and incredibly small.
Wild animals barely make it, and they're used to living in the wild.
Domesticated animals just can't hack it out in the wild.
A long, long time ago, humans and animals entered the uneasy but usually mutually beneficial relationship of owner/pet. Animals could provide for themselves to some extent, but they fared just as well or better when they gave up some of their freedom (which wasn't that great, anyway) and cast their lot with humans.
I didn't kidnap any of my pets. I certainly would think not twice, but a number of times, before adopting a wild animal as a pet.
But my cat is a lovely little member of my family (well, not lovely...but certainly loved), and I have no doubt that she's better off living inside with me than out in a world full of parasites and predators and cars bearing down on her.
And saying that eating animals isn't hypocritical is no way to win this argument, either. You can certainly survive, and survive quite well, with no meat in your diet whatsoever.
If you're going to make an argument, do try to use logic...it would certainly strengthen your case if you presented it without easily refuted logical fallacies.
Edit: and as far as "letting animals reproduce if they want"--no. No, no, no. That's why there are too many domestic animals in the world and millions are killed every year. It's up to every pet owner to be responsible for controlling their pet's reproduction.
It's not a matter of pets "enjoying" mating. They mate because they have a biological urge to mate.
I doubt most animals enjoy being driven by their hormones to mate and having to deal with one or more unwanted pregnancies. Spayed/neutered pets are generally calmer, better-behaved, and better pets in general.
Humans, who are capable of enjoying sex, are also capable of having sex for reasons other than reproduction.
Animals, especially domesticated animals, generally only mate for reproductive purposes. They're not, like, say, bonobo chimps who seem to enjoy sex. A lot.
But then, bonobos aren't pregnant all the time, either.
And they're usually not pets.
So we'll just leave them out of this argument.
You can't compare pets to humans...except among consenting adults.
But that's another argument entirely.