You did not name atheism you made some weird statement about 'the other institution' and how they would prevent births, which makes zero sense at all. Women should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, atheists and religious folks alike and those that have no horse in the race should stfu because all they are doing is telling other people how they should live, something that unfortunately is very common.

Are you aware that a secular scientific approach to sexual health results in far fewer abortions? Chiefly proper sex education and freely available contraceptives to minors.

> The other institution may prevent your birth. Which is worse?

You're mixing worldviews in your rejoinder.

For an atheist, Atheism not preventing "your" birth as there is no soul ("you") waiting in the wings to prevent. No you to prevent until personhood after birth.

Rather, to an atheist, it's enabling the filtering out of unfortunate humanist futures. No child need be brought into unwantedness, disease, insufficient support, or other misfortunes. As there is no supernatural providence (no God to provide), logically, one should not bring forth future humans into a lack of providing.

The atheist assumes the mother is best qualified to evaluate this choice, and thus to make it. The atheist further presumes the mother is the person most affected by this choice (there is no other "you" yet), and thus has greatest right to make it.

To be clear, many Christians hold the same view as this example atheist, particularly those who think living is defined by knowing, and being dead by not knowing:

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." – Ecc. 9:5

Roughly, those who believe there is no separate soul hanging around before or after an independent body by-and-large have no problem with holding a woman has a right to choose.