Your statement seems to reject the notion that humans should be compared with animals. After all (you seem to imply) humans are superior beings and are nothing like savage animals who sometimes kill and eat their own young. But if we compare humans to animals, humans are often no better and in many cases are often more savage than most animals.
As early as 1895, the German physician Alfred Ploetz introduced the notion of Rassenhygiene or “racial hygiene” and was influenced by the writings of a number of British and American eugenicists including Sir Francis Galton, Charles Davenport, and Albert Priddy. Hitler read about Ploetz and others like him and was enamored by what he read. In 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (commonly known as the Sterilization Law) which allowed anyone with a hereditary disease to be sterilized. In 1939, they started a program to eradicate “genetic defective” and described the victims with the euphemism lebensunwertes Leben or “lives unworthy of living.” They started off by euthanizing “defective” children under three years of age and soon expanded this program to include adolescents, juvenile delinquents, Jewish children, and then adults. By 1941, a quarter of a million men, women, and children had been exterminated and about four hundred thousand compulsory sterilizations had been performed. And, as we all know, all of this ultimately led to the extermination of over 6 million Jews, two hundred thousand Gypsies, thousands of homosexuals, etc.
But what the Nazis did is hardly an exceptions is it? King Leopold and the Belgians were responsible for killing up to 10 million Africans in the Congo. And killing children is hardly a Nazi innovation. Many human cultures have practiced infanticide in the past. And in war, humans can be quite savage and millions of people have been killed in wars.
It seems to me that if we compare humans to animals, humans often come off as being worse than animals in many ways, not superior beings.