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.
if (!crypter.Encrypt(_vMasterKey, kMasterKey.vchCryptedKey))
        return false;
    {
        LOCK(cs_);
        mapMasterKeys[++nMasterKeyMaxID] = kMasterKey;
        WalletBatch* encrypted_batch = new WalletBatch(GetDatabase());
        if (!encrypted_batch->TxnBegin()) {
            delete encrypted_batch;
            encrypted_batch = nullptr;
            return false;
        }
        encrypted_batch->WriteMasterKey(nMasterKeyMaxID, kMasterKey);
        for (const auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
            auto spk_man = spk_man_pair.second.get();
            if (!spk_man->Encrypt(_vMasterKey, encrypted_batch)) {
                encrypted_batch->TxnAbort();
                delete encrypted_batch;
                encrypted_batch = nullptr;
                
                
                assert(false);
            }
        }
        
        SetMinVersion(FEATURE_WALLETCRYPT, encrypted_batch);
        if (!encrypted_batch->TxnCommit()) {
            delete encrypted_batch;
            encrypted_batch = nullptr;