Some countries such as Russia, Germany, and Japan are losing population and could stand to gain by banning abortion, keeping population growth at a sustainable level and avoiding the problems caused by an "overaging" population in the future. Countries whose populations are growing fast on the other hand should have legal abortion.
As much as I'm supporting the right of abortion for women, I feel obligated to say 'no' here.
Either a country allows abortion or it doesn't. Allowing it should be done because of the rights of women over their bodies and not as means of population control, and all other considerations should follow afterwards.
Yes, 'over aging' may be a problem in some countries, but forcing women to give birth should really not be an option to solve it. Instead politics should find ways to make it more appealing to raise children after all (or not, as I'm all for a much smaller global population). Intensified education and distribution of general contraceptives in overpopulated countries would further be a much more successful approach to tackle their problems.
Also, taking Germany as an example, the rate of abortions there is declining as well - even faster than the birth rate. Thus, it wouldn't be even sure that banning abortion in "shrinking" countries would lead to any long-term influence on demographics. Banning all actual contraceptives seems more promising, playing the devil's advocate. But who would wan't that?
Abortion is wrong, always has been, always will be. See, when a baby is aborted, you decide that that child does not have the right to live; and who are you to decide that!? By authorizing abortion you authorize the MURDER of innocent children, a violation of their God given rights. What if your mom had gotten an abortion? Would you like that?
Public policy should be based on sound principles. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and is objectively wrong. If one were to begin to base abortion policy on a country's projected population needs you are wading into a society of relativistic morality where nothing is really wrong objectively. Another problem would be a disagreement among people about what a country's "population needs" really are. It would turn into a political and ideological disaster.
No offense, but the idea that banning abortion would actually decrease levels of abortion is at odds with reality; what actually happens is the levels of abortion pretty much stay exactly the same, it's just that they are now illegal, unregulated and more dangerous.
If a given woman does not want t give birth to a child, then as long as she has access to basic tools, medicines or medical information available even to women in third world s**tholes, she just won't have a child. Making it illegal simply doesn't change that fact. And taking away access to that information, or those basic tools and medicines, which includes such things as clothes hangers and nondescript, highly useful medications, is a further violation of basic rights.
As well, making abortion illegal is a huge violation of basic human rights; the idea that the desires, or even the needs, of the state somehow outweigh the rights of the individual is at odds with both international law and most legitimate forms of ethical thought. The idea that a given government can be allowed to make degrading impositions on it's populace because it suits them to do so, is completely ethically bankrupt.
As long as the population of a country was to high and thus abortion would be allowed and supported, I'd be okay with that. But on the other hand, that would mean, that in a country with a shrinking populations abortion would be banned, and that is wrong. It should be possible and allowed for a women to abort her child, independently from the population of the country she is living in.
It is her life and her body, so it should also be her choice.