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{"listlabels",
                "\nReturns the list of all labels, or labels that are assigned to addresses with a specific purpose.\n",
                {
                    {"purpose", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "Address purpose to list labels for ('send','receive'). An empty string is the same as not providing this argument."},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::ARR, "", "",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::STR, "label", "Label name"},
                    }
                },
                RPCExamples{
            "\nList all labels\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("listlabels", "") +
            "\nList labels that have receiving addresses\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("listlabels", "receive") +
            "\nList labels that have sending addresses\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("listlabels", "send") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"
            + HelpExampleRpc("listlabels", "receive")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue