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{"getaddressesbylabel",
                "\nReturns the list of addresses assigned the specified label.\n",
                {
                    {"label", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The label."},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::OBJ_DYN, "", "json object with addresses as keys",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "address", "json object with information about address",
                        {
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "purpose", "Purpose of address (\"send\" for sending address, \"receive\" for receiving address)"},
                        }},
                    }
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("getaddressesbylabel", "\"tabby\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("getaddressesbylabel", "\"tabby\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);