Someone's projecting.
Anyway. What "right to choose" do you really think a child has? None legally, certainly- you're technically property of your parents until you turn 18- you get about as many rights as the family pet. Who typically, if male, has its balls cut off- be glad you got a better deal. Your parents can't kick the **** out of you on a regular basis, can't put you out with the garbage or otherwise engage in gross negligence, but if they imagine something's for your own good and are mentally competent (in the legal sense), then they're basically entitled to do it. The doctor cannot be sued for malpractice, even if he did misinform your parents (which is still far from established, you're still looking to be panicking about a whole lot of wholly unsupported generalizations and claims), because not only is he most likely retired by now, but he did what he did in good faith, and was engaging in a highly common practice accepted worldwide.
Morally? You're an infant when it happens. You don't have a say in what happens in your life- you couldn't even form a coherent thought to make a decision if you did. You're basically just there- not a functional human being yet, just a thing that has only those rights and entitlements that others choose to give you (which is, incidentially, about the case now as well, but that's neither here nor there). Your "right to choose" at that point is entirely fictitious. Do you really think you could have made a rational choice about this at that age? Do you think your parents and doctors were entitled to just stand back whenever administering any form of care might have done some harm at some point in the future? Do you want, say, your umbilical cord back? How about suing for all those painful vaccinations that gave a fair probability you'd survive to this age? You certainly didn't want them then, and there are plenty of cases of bad vaccinations causing horrible diseases and deformities later in life- never mind that it's commonly accepted that they save thousands of lives every year, they fly in the face of infant rights and unnecessarily endanger children for a cultural superstition that little germ things are going to kill people unless they get poked with needles!
If you don't want your kids to get circumcised, that's quite all right- that's a personal choice, and you have your reasons. But you're not gonna be able to sue your old doctor, and you're not winning any converts with this vehement defense of a rather crappy webpage- you wanna support the idea that it's any more than a subjective decision, that any of that stuff is true? Find a page that supports it- we've all seen plenty of looney-tune paranoid wacked-out freako pages on the Internet in our time, if one wants to stand out from all that and make a claim that goes against what basically anyone else says they'd better damn well have documentation, or at least something better than a couple of generalized terms and phrases they could just as well have made up. We know you're capable of rational thought, and sometimes rational arguments, if you really can't do better than this it's somewhat a disservice to your case, as it looks like there really isn't much better than baseless claims and hyperbole.
Or, you can sit there and sniffle about how the big bad Stryke is hurting your feewings by comparing your favoritest page in the world to the other wierd pages that don't ever bother support their wild claims. Not sure what you think it'll get you, but that, once again, is your prerogative.
