I thought you knew the concept of Absolute vs Relative Morality. Apparently, you don't and that's why you took it as an insult. Let me explain (I hope you have the patience to read this - it's important):

Absolute vs. Relative Morality
Precisely because G-d is the Ultimate Being, by default He embodies the very essence of moral behaviors and His very action defines what moral behaviors are (unless He tells us to do otherwise in the Torah, which would mean that for us the right moral act would be to act as He commands). The whole definition of "morality" is relative. "Pizza" is a defined object containing bread, sauce and cheese, and there's nothing "relative" about it. But how about defining "morality". Literally, it would be translated as "acts considered as right and appropriate". Yet who decides what is the right thing to do? Why should people be deciding what you or me should do? If you have the same feeling as the rest (or majority) of society, then fine; it is understood why you would listen - because you have that feeling of morality (not to murder for example). But if you disagree, why then should you listen to them? Is it they who decide right and wrong?!
To understand this profound idea a little better we will discuss the idea of "doing"; why a person does any action. Naturally, a person would lay as a lump of clay, doing absolutely nothing, despite the intellect we were granted. Because intellect on its own doesn't tell us to do anything, it is merely a calculator that makes calculations and an encyclopedia that provides us with information. It is only due to our desires, our feelings, that we do actions. Our desire is to satisfy our hunger. So the brain gets to work figuring out what calculation equals hunger-satisfaction. It tells us that getting food and eating it will do the job. Our desire is to feel good, so the brain tells us that playing, studying, conversing and entertainment will satisfy that natural yearning for a good feeling or happiness. Everything we do is in order to make ourselves feel good. Every action of ours traces back to this idea.
Our brain can comprehend that the greatest benefit for oneself is the ultimate reward which is granted in the World to Come for those who earn it in this world. Continuing its calculation it tells us to do the right acts that earn this reward. "Right acts" are those that were determined by Creator of heavens and earth and laid out for us in the Torah. His authority overrides common feelings of "morality". For example, if common feelings of compassion and morality feels that annihilating the entire nation of Amalek is wrong and Creator of the universe would differ, then His authority will prevail for two reasons. First, His existence and will is infinitely greater than the entire world's put together, thus more dominant (though this won't necessarily mean that we, from our perspective, must listen to Him). Secondly and mainly, His command will prevail because it is for our benefit (in the World to Come) that we do it over that command of general society.
So, was it the right and moral thing for the Jews to kill the nation of Amalek? Absolutely, yes. If that's G-d's will, then for the two aforementioned reasons it overrides societies perspective -or more like feelings- on the matter, and is therefore the most moral thing the Jews could have actually done!
If our brain would have told us there's something wrong with murdering Amalek, then that would be a whole new ball-game and discussion. But in reality it is our feelings that tell is telling us that something is wrong with murdering. It is only because we are uncomfortable with the action of murdering (usually because we mirror the action done to ourselves which causes a compassionate feeling towards the victim etc.). Feelings aren't an objective reality (as is an intellectual fact) but is a relative biological feeling that has consequences and is related only to those who have this biological feeling setup (which happens to be most people, with the exception of criminals and murderers). The fact that "why should that man get killed?" or "would you like to have been the victim?" are not valid logical objections to the act of murdering. The reason that man should get killed, from the murderers perspective (which everything a man does is from his perspective), is in order to achieve whatever goal it is that results from the murder (e.g. the repossession of his finances or an act of revenge). The fact that the murderer wouldn't like it to have been done to him isn't either a valid objection because in fact it's not happening to the him and will not in result of this action (in cases where the local authority won't find out about it). So if the murderer doesn't share this same biological feeling of "guilt" with murdering, then theoretically he would have zero reason indeed not to kill (in cases where the local authority won't find out about it). It is only because of G-d's command not to murder that he shouldn't murder - for his very own benefit (in the World to Come)!
We must thank the Lord for creating our emotional consciousness (our feeling's morality) in the likes of real absolute morality. He forbade murder and we feel guilty murdering. He forbade stealing and we feel guilty stealing. It is to our emotional comfort that we are not obligated to do acts that we feel guilty doing. As we shall soon explain, even the command of killing Amalek has moral basis that our minds can also rationalize. See upcoming subchapter "slavery, capital punishment and Amalek".
If there was no G-d, then morality would be relative to ones feelings. This concept is called "relative morality". But because there is a G-d, there is an absolute, non-relative morality that is not dependant on any human's feelings. This is called "absolute morality".
To explain the concept in practical terms, we will use an example. Let's use the act of killing. John decides to kill his enemy whom he fought with for quite some time. John, different than most humans, doesn't "feel guilty about the action he did, and on the contrary he actually justifies it. Was his act "immoral"? In a way yes; but it's not absolute morality, and technically it's not "wrong". He might be sentenced in court, but the court's decision is only relative to what they consider wrong (because their biological feelings happened to have the feeling of guilt of murdering).
Similarly, even if the vast-majority of mankind feels guilty about murdering - what if the murderer himself doesn't have that guilty feeling, is it still immoral for him? No! It is indeed relative and personal, and there's no reason John - from his perspective (which all actions are dependent on personal perspectives) - is expected to share the same feeling and "morality" as the rest of the world.
It is understood why humanity as a whole would legally prohibit murder, because for most people it is considered immoral. Additionally, humanity wouldn't survive if anyone killed he who he dislikes. But it is equally understood the fact that John doesn't have this feeling and therefore, from his perspective, there's nothing wrong with the act.
Theoretically, if I was an atheist, I would understand John despite the fact that I'm included in the first category of people (who feel guilty with the act of murder). So, even though I wouldn't like what John did, I wouldn't be able to logically prove that what he did was "wrong" or "immoral".
Am I justifying John's act? No, and that is only because I believe in G-d who prohibited the act - thus absolute morality. Consequently, if, theoretically, Judaism was to include "immoral" acts that are despised by most humans, it would, in fact, be the very "moral" thing to do - because G-d, the ultimate authority, decides morality! This might be emotionally hard to grasp, but is logically deduced, as we have explained.
Did I just permit Islam's terrorism? No, because I know that Islam is the epitome of falsehood. If I was to believe in Islam, then I would... (G-d forbid) despite my consciousness, because that would be the truth.

Regarding your point about if the patent owns the baby or it has it's own rights:
First of all, yes the parent does have the right to do to the baby what they know is in fact good for the baby.
Secondly, about 90% of people are happy that their parents circumcised them, thus a parent can rightfully assume the child will one day be happy about the act.