I voted to take the risk in the poll, but I wanna clarify, that I'm speaking only about dyslexia.
For very serious neurological and physical illnesses I'd think twice maybe, had no idea dyslexia is that bad though.
The worst disease for this kinda thing that I know of is Huntingtons.
It's not a disease that my family is genetically prone too, but it is something that has become a part of my family through one of my cousins.
One of my cousins married a man who didn't tell her he could (and it turned out did) have huntingtons. And she had a child with him.
If you know anything about Huntingtons you know that means that child now has 50% odds of having a much shortened life followed by a very unpleasant death.
It's a horrible disease. And I do think that morally speaking, you can't just act like you have some right to have children if you have that kind of a disease. Some diseases are so bad that I don't think you can rightly take having children as your right when it's very likely you will pass it on. There are options like IVF, and all of this is politically messy, with questions about how bad a disease has to be to where this becomes an issue, as well as all the controversies attached to IVF, but those are questions for another thread.
My point in bringing this up, is I don't think you have a right to have children just because you theoretically can. Not morally speaking.
But dyslexia isn't such a disease where I think this applies. I'm just saying I do think there are diseases where this is a valid concern and that your right to have kids doesn't begin and end at your capacity to have kids.