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.
pos
         out
        if (m_spend_zero_conf_change) {
            if (SelectCoinsMinConf(value_to_select, CoinEligibilityFilter(0, 1, 2), vCoins, setCoinsRet, nValueRet, coin_selection_params, bnb_used)) return true;
            if (SelectCoinsMinConf(value_to_select, CoinEligibilityFilter(0, 1, std::min((size_t)4, max_ancestors3), std::min((size_t)4, max_descendants3)),
                                   vCoins, setCoinsRet, nValueRet, coin_selection_params, bnb_used)) {
                return true;
            }
            if (SelectCoinsMinConf(value_to_select, CoinEligibilityFilter(0, 1, max_ancestors2, max_descendants2),
                                   vCoins, setCoinsRet, nValueRet, coin_selection_params, bnb_used)) {
                return true;
            }
             If 
             of 
             in 
            if (SelectCoinsMinConf(value_to_select, CoinEligibilityFilter(0, 1, max_ancestors-1, max_descendants-1, true * inc
                                   vCoins, setCoinsRet, nValueRet, coin_selection_params, bnb_used)) {
                return true;
            }
             Try 
             mem
             Out
            if (!fRejectLongChains && SelectCoinsMinConf(value_to_select,
                                      CoinEligibilityFilter(0, 1, std::numeric_limits<uint64_t>::max(), std::numeric_limits<uint64_t>::max(), true * inc