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.
wtx.m_it_wtxOrdered = wtxOrdered.insert(std::make_pair(wtx.nOrderPos, &wtx));
    }
    AddToSpends(hash);
    for (const CTxIn& txin : wtx.tx->vin) {
        auto it = mapWallet.find(txin.prevout.hash);
        if (it != mapWallet.end()) {
            CWalletTx& prevtx = it->second;
            if (prevtx.isConflicted()) {
                MarkConflicted(prevtx.m_confirm.hashBlock, prevtx.m_confirm.block_height, wtx.GetHash());
            }
        }
    }
    return true;
}
bool CWallet::AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe(const CTransactionRef& ptx, CWalletTx::Confirmation confirm, bool fUpdate)
{
    const CTransaction& tx = *ptx;
    {
        AssertLockHeld(cs_);
        if (!confirm.hashBlock.IsNull()) {
            for (const CTxIn& txin : tx.vin) {
                std::pair<TxSpends::const_iterator, TxSpends::const_iterator> range = mapTxSpends.equal_range(txin.prevout);
                while (range.first != range.second) {
                    if (range.first->second != tx.GetHash()) {
                        WalletLogPrintf("Transaction %s (in block %s) conflicts with  transaction %s (both spend %s:%i)\n", tx.GetHash().ToString(), confirm.hashBlock.ToString(), range.first->second.ToString(), range.first->first.hash.ToString(), range.first->first.n);
                        MarkConflicted(confirm.hashBlock, confirm.block_height, range.first->second);
                    }
                    range.first++;
                }
            }