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.
{
    for (const CTxIn& txin : tx->vin) {
        auto it = mapWallet.find(txin.prevout.hash);
        if (it != mapWallet.end()) {
            it->second.MarkDirty();
        }
    }
}
bool CWallet::AbandonTransaction(const uint256& hashTx)
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    WalletBatch batch(GetDatabase());
    std::set<uint256> todo;
    std::set<uint256> done;
    
    auto it = mapWallet.find(hashTx);
    assert(it != mapWallet.end());
    const CWalletTx& origtx = it->second;
    if (origtx.GetDepthInMainChain() != 0 || origtx.InMempool()) {
        return false;
    }
    todo.insert(hashTx);
    while (!todo.empty()) {
        uint256 now = *todo.begin();
        todo.erase(now);
        done.insert(now);