[Stef's argument for self-ownership = Tu Quoque fallacy?]

I think self ownership can be proven by reducing to absurdity: 

 

"I don't own myself, therefore I accept that I be killed or raped."

This is a common error, it doesn't follow that because you don't own yourself as property, that you can be morally permissibly killed or raped. For instance, it might be morally wrong to rape you because it has bad consequences, i.e. suffering. There are many other moral frameworks which explain why rape is wrong other than deontological self-ownership. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid theory, just that this is a bad argument for it.

[Suicide and UPB]

I would parrot the main points already mentioned.1. Suicide always (ok not always...) leaves people negatively impacted by ending your life.  Any ways they could be positively impacted could also be achieved through other means than suicide.

2. I think stef kinda touched on this type of argument in the last call in show.  Preventing suicide although maybe in the truest sense of the term could be a violation of NAP, ultimately no sane person could say its really an act of aggression.  If someone else was performing the act of killing that person and you stopped it, you wouldn't say your act of aggression on the other person was greater than the act of aggression from the murderer.  Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression. What this means is no rational person is going to honestly fault you or complain that you prevented suicide of a person... in most cases. Surely if that person was in extended pain or had a terminal illness or what have you the line gets fuzzy, but I don't think your issue would be people justifying suicide in their death bed.  

3. Someone committing suicide often times is caused by them being mentally 'sick'. There is a little bit of common sense needed in that their temporary choice is probably one even themselves won't agree with at a later time.  It would probably be immoral to stop someone from suicide and then not make any effort to provide them help to get better mentally.   

"Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression."That's advocating a consequentialism of non-aggression, which is anathema to Stefan's philosophy. It isn't about limiting acts of aggression overall, rather not commiting acts of aggression yourself. What you are suggesting is in fact an argument from effect, which Stefan would reject. The fact that it might have consequences you like doesn't mean that initiating force is morally permissible.