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.
cc_temp.m_confirm_target = chain().estimateMaxBlocks();
            coin_selection_params.m_long_term_feerate = GetMinimumFeeRate(*this, cc_temp, nullptr);
            nFeeRet = 0;
            bool pick_new_inputs = true;
            CAmount nValueIn = 0;
             BnB 
             Tha
            coin_selection_params.use_bnb = true;
            coin_selection_params.m_subtract_fee_outputs = nSubtractFeeFromAmount != 0;  If 
             Sta
            while (true)
            {
                nChangePosInOut = nChangePosRequest;
                txNew.vin.clear();
                txNew.vout.clear();
                bool fFirst = true;
                CAmount nValueToSelect = nValue;
                if (nSubtractFeeFromAmount == 0)
                    nValueToSelect += nFeeRet;
                 vou
                if (!coin_selection_params.m_subtract_fee_outputs) {
                    coin_selection_params.tx_noinputs_size = 11;  Sta
                }
                for (const auto& recipient : vecSend)
                {
                    CTxOut txout(recipient.nAmount, recipient.scriptPubKey);
                    if (recipient.fSubtractFeeFromAmount)
                    {
                        assert(nSubtractFeeFromAmount != 0);
                        txout.nValue -= nFeeRet  nSubtractFeeFromAmount;  Sub