Both involve sentient beings. This is not about valuing children less. This is about valuing sheep more.
This might be an uncomfortable world view, taking how much we depend on non-human abuse in our civilization, but it's not the only case where we built it on abuse of others, human or not.
If it was neccessary to save my child, I'd eagerly murder every sheep in the world in the most painful way possible with my hands.
Animal lives and welfare do matter, but when it comes to weighing human lives against animal lives, only a ratio of something like a million-to-one may be ethically justified. Definitely not one-to-one sheep to a kid. Definitely not even hundred-to-one. It could be reasonable to sacrifice a few humans to spare a species from extinction, but not to save some individual animals, however sentient they may be.
My fellow humans are important. Leaving a kid to die to spare a hundred sheep is disgraceful.
How about we don't murder any sheep or children, and instead spend the money that we would've spent on sheep torture on better fences, signs, education and mine clearance? While you're at it, you can lobby your elected representative to spend more than the currently pitiful amount that they do on mine clearance.
ps. A million-to-one? You have a very interesting idea of "ethics". Also of "definitely".
Wow, it must be really scary to be a kid of someone with that kind of violent fantasies.
Now, as a mental exercise, I suggest you replace "animal" with a racial slur of choice. Because, seriously, 100 years ago people said that about all kinds of other people. They actually still do. Having a slightly higher amount of common DNA is not a justification of whatever-the-hell.
And at the point where you say "however sentient they may be", you just go into downright I-don't-want-to-meet-that-person-in-a-dark-alley territory.
The first sentence was an overexagerration, but I have had near-death experience for my kid, and that makes you reconsider various things in life seriously. I am certainly not a violent person whatsoever, but from that incident I understood that I would disregard almost everything if stakes were that high once more.
But, coming back to the original issue - it all comes down to two different theories of ethics, opinions about what is good and just: in essence, if some choice equals to murdering one to save ten others [a simplification for the sake of argument, assume that no alternatives exist] , would doing so be good or evil?
There are valid arguments to say that doing so would be evil by the nature of the act.
There are valid arguments to say that not doing so would be evil, by the result of the act (10 others dying instead of 1).
And I do value a human life of "a racial slur of choice" more than a hundred sheep - archaic laws did value human lives in a couple dozen of domestic animals, and that whas when a peasant's life was considered cheap; we can and should be better than that.
And I do value my kids life more than your life - that is also quite natural, I doubt that you'd find any parents who think otherwise.
It all adds up. I mean, if you start discussing life and death, then most solutions aren't pretty; and discussing only 'pure' solutions means not saving (= murdering) lives - such as the lives of people that could have been saved by some sheep.
You do realize these sheep are not pets and are not treated as such in Afghanistan, right? They will be used for milk, wool, and some will be slaughtered for meat.
This makes sense for the people who live there- the dessert is not an easy place to grow crops and a multi-purpose animal is very valuable for survival purposes. Animal rights is a tough sell in a place like this.
It seems like an ineffective non-systematic way to de-mine that damages animals that the Afghans value though.
Of course — I said dependance. Just as we depend on abuse of countless people, and we can't stop either overnight. It doesn't change the fact that it's horrible one bit.
This might be an uncomfortable world view, taking how much we depend on non-human abuse in our civilization, but it's not the only case where we built it on abuse of others, human or not.