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.
{
    GetDatabase().Close();
}
void CWallet::SyncMetaData(std::pair<TxSpends::iterator, TxSpends::iterator> range)
{
    
    
    
    int nMinOrderPos = std::numeric_limits<int>::max();
    const CWalletTx* copyFrom = nullptr;
    for (TxSpends::iterator it = range.first; it != range.second; ++it) {
        const CWalletTx* wtx = &mapWallet.at(it->second);
        if (wtx->nOrderPos < nMinOrderPos) {
            nMinOrderPos = wtx->nOrderPos;
            copyFrom = wtx;
        }
    }
    if (!copyFrom) {
        return;
    }
    
    for (TxSpends::iterator it = range.first; it != range.second; ++it)
    {
        const uint256& hash = it->second;
        CWalletTx* copyTo = &mapWallet.at(hash);
        if (copyFrom == copyTo) continue;
        assert(copyFrom && "Oldest  transaction in range assumed to have been found.");
        if (!copyFrom->IsEquivalentTo(*copyTo)) continue;
        copyTo->mapValue = copyFrom->mapValue;
        copyTo->vOrderForm = copyFrom->vOrderForm;