I'm not seeing anything compelling in any of your 5 points.
0. You are arguing that people who aren't subject to a specific risk should be worrying about being subject to that risk. That is a bad argument. So bad it feels absurd to have to type it out to you.
1. The law could change in the future? OK... Laws could change in an infinite number of ways. I can't mitigate an infinite number of risks.
2. If you visit a country where this is a risk to you, then avoid the risk. Nobody said otherwise. It is dishonest to argue with strawmen.
3. There are many easy ways to find someone's relatives. DNA does not change this situation in a material way.
4. Yes, I agree that you cannot predict the future. But much of your argument is based on the assumption that you can do so.
0. You are arguing that people who aren't subject to a specific risk should be worrying about being subject to that risk. That is a bad argument. So bad it feels absurd to have to type it out to you.
1. The law could change in the future? OK... Laws could change in an infinite number of ways. I can't mitigate an infinite number of risks.
2. If you visit a country where this is a risk to you, then avoid the risk. Nobody said otherwise. It is dishonest to argue with strawmen.
3. There are many easy ways to find someone's relatives. DNA does not change this situation in a material way.
4. Yes, I agree that you cannot predict the future. But much of your argument is based on the assumption that you can do so.