Would it be completely unreasonable to allow `fundrawtransaction` to use unsafe outputs?

I understand this means the resulting transaction may be invalidated whenever the unsafe output I'm relying one disappears (e.g. because the transaction that produced it was RBF-ed) but in my case that's ok, I'll react to that and re-publish the tree of child transactions accordingly.

But let me know if you think that's too much of a footgun for users, in that case I'll architect my solution differently.
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"getnewaddress",
                "\nReturns a new Bitcoin address for receiving payments.\n"
                "If 'label' is specified, it is added to the address book \n"
                "so payments received with the address will be associated with 'label'.\n",
                {
                    {"label", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Default{""}, "The label name for the address to be linked to. It can also be set to the empty string \"\" to represent the default label. The label does not need to exist, it will be created if there is no label by the given name."},
                    {"address_type", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::DefaultHint{"set by -addresstype"}, "The address type to use. Options are \"legacy\", \"p2sh-segwit\", and \"bech32\"."},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::STR, "address", "The new bitcoin address"
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("getnewaddress", "")
            + HelpExampleRpc("getnewaddress", "")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    if (!pwallet->CanGetAddresses()) {