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.
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    vCoins.clear();
    CAmount nTotal = 0;
     Either the WALLET_FLAG_AVOID_REUSE flag is not set (in which case we always allow), or we default to avoiding, and only in the case where
     a coin control object is provided, and has the avoid address reuse flag set to false, do we allow already used addresses
    bool allow_used_addresses = !IsWalletFlagSet(WALLET_FLAG_AVOID_REUSE) || (coinControl && !coinControl->m_avoid_address_reuse);
    const int min_depth = {coinControl ? coinControl->m_min_depth : DEFAULT_MIN_DEPTH};
    const int max_depth = {coinControl ? coinControl->m_max_depth : DEFAULT_MAX_DEPTH};
    std::set<uint256> trusted_parents;
    for (const auto& entry : mapWallet)
    {
        const uint256& wtxid = entry.first;
        const CWalletTx& wtx = entry.second;
        if (!chain().checkFinalTx(*wtx.tx)) {
            continue;
        }
        if (wtx.IsImmatureCoinBase())
            continue;
        int nDepth = wtx.GetDepthInMainChain();
        if (nDepth < 0)
            continue;
         We 
         It'
        if (nDepth == 0 && !wtx.InMempool())
            continue;
        bool safeTx = IsTrusted(wtx, trusted_parents);
         We