[nokya]

Okay. Let's assume your top priority is to test for genetic health issues, I will also assume that you either plan on reducing the risk of future complications or you are factoring this information into account when deciding to get children (otherwise, why would you want this information?).

In the first case (reducing risk factors), chances that you will at least check positive for one thing are almost 1 (certain) and you don't need a test to know that. In almost all cases, limiting the risk will involve a) eating well b) stopping alcohol / smoking c) regular physical activity d) taking some Aspirin for the remainder of your life. You don't need the test results to start doing this. Either you sincerely want to live longer and shouldn't wait for genetic screening to take your matters into your own hands, or you think that test results will suddenly turn you into a monk. News flash: won't happen.

In the second case (whether or not to procreate): any decision you make on the hypothesis that your children will inherit it and that science will not have solved it in the next 50 years will very likely be a bad reason to not have children (there are many good reasons to not have children, though, but having a rare genetic conditions is not a good reason).

The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids. Guess what? These two groups that probably have the highest amount of kids on Earth.

[technocrat8080]

I mostly agree with your first point, but is there not a chance for more serious disease to be detected? In which case specialized preventative care is the best path forward? There is definitely something to be said about staying ignorant of these, however.

> The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids.

I don't think people who are highly susceptible to birthing malformed children should have children either. Genetic testing helps figure out if you might be in that group.

[nokya]

Yes, I can agree with you, did not think of that and it seems to be a perfectly valid motive.

Still, I wonder: who would fall in the "highly susceptible" category? Wouldn't these people need to be tested prior to actually knowing they should be tested? (what would push someone to be tested for susceptibility of birthing malformed children before being tested?)