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.
nNextResend = GetTime() + (12 * 60 * 60) + GetRand(24 * 60 * 60);
    if (fFirst) return;
    int submitted_tx_count = 0;
    {  cs_
        LOCK(cs_);
         Rel
        for (std::pair<const uint256, CWalletTx>& item : mapWallet) {
            CWalletTx& wtx = item.second;
             Att
             the 
             any 
            if (wtx.nTimeReceived > m_best_block_time - 5 * 60) continue;
            std::string unused_err_string;
            if (wtx.SubmitMemoryPoolAndRelay(unused_err_string, true)) ++submitted_tx_count;
        }
    }  cs_
    if (submitted_tx_count > 0) {
        WalletLogPrintf("%s: resubmit %u unconfirmed transactions\n", __func__, submitted_tx_count);
    }
}
** @} d of mapWallet
void MaybeResendWalletTxs()
{
    for (const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>& p : GetWallets()) {
        p->ResendWalletTransactions();
    }
}
** @defgroup Actions
 *
 * @{