Apes, children, and the value of life.

There was a recent incident at the zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, involving a three-year-old child falling into the gorilla enclosure and the subsequent killing of a male gorilla named Harambe by zoo officials who was either threatening or protecting the child, depending upon who you ask.  Setting aside the question of whether or not Harambe would have harmed the child if the zoo had instead tried to use a tranquilizer on him, for that ought to be a question answered by gorilla experts, we all ought to be able to agree that Harambe could have easily killed the child he was holding on to, whether intentionally or not.  Thus the question should not be about the intentions of the gorilla, but instead about the value of the two lives involved.  One of the two was a endangered gorilla, the other a human child.  How can these two lives be weighed, how can one decide their relative value?
For those who do not believe in God, and thus have no concept of humanity as having an immortal soul, nor of humanity created in the image of God, the question is a much more difficult one to answer.  If you don't believe in God, humanity is simply on step above primates, higher, but only relatively so.  If we are only the product of evolution, and our place at the top of this planet's food chain is only the outcome of chance, and not the design of a Creator, there will be little separating humanity from other life in terms of value.  For those who don't believe in God, the idea that a human life could have less value than an animal's life becomes a possibility.
To those who do believe in God as Creator, who see humanity as a reflection of the divine image, every human life must have an inherent value qualitatively different than any animal life.  Without God, human life is greater in a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.  But for those who see the hand of God in the face of every child, the gap between human life and animal life is, and must be, vast.
I would choose to save a human life, at the cost of any animal's life, even a great number of animal lives.  I would choose a 90-year-old with Alzheimers disease over an endangered baby animal.  I would choose a severely handicapped human life, mentally or physically, over any animal's life.  Why, because that human being has a soul, that life is a gift from God, and it is our duty to protect it in any way that we can.  In case this implication isn't clear too, I would also certainly choose the life of an unborn child over an animal's life as well.
Do I love animals?  I certainly do, some of my best memories and interactions have been with my dogs, and we've taken our one-year-old daughter to the zoo twice already.  My wife is obsessed with hiking in the woods out West to look for moose.  We've done this many times, and will undoubtedly do so again soon when our daughter is old enough to trek along.  I think moose are awesome, and would oppose cruelty or senseless killing of them or any other animals.  But don't think for a second that I would hesitate to protect my wife or child, or any other human life, if it was threatened by an animal.
This recent controversy over the killing of an ape to save a child has been greatly inflated by a significant number of people who have erroneously concluded that the life of the child and the life of the ape have a similar value.  Such belief is wrong, dangerous, and not connected to the teaching of the Word of God.  Perhaps the zoo could have used a tranquilizer, but to do so they would have put the life of a child at a greater risk in order to save the life of an animal, and that decision would have been not only unacceptable, but immoral.  They chose human life because they valued it as they should have.