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.
const std::vector<CRecipient>& vecSend,
        CTransactionRef& tx,
        CAmount& nFeeRet,
        int& nChangePosInOut,
        bilingual_str& error,
        const CCoinControl& coin_control,
        FeeCalculation& fee_calc_out,
        bool sign)
{
    CAmount nValue = 0;
    const OutputType change_type = TransactionChangeType(coin_control.m_change_type ? *coin_control.m_change_type : m_default_change_type, vecSend);
    ReserveDestination reservedest(this, change_type);
    int nChangePosRequest = nChangePosInOut;
    unsigned int nSubtractFeeFromAmount = 0;
    for (const auto& recipient : vecSend)
    {
        if (nValue < 0 || recipient.nAmount < 0)
        {
            error = _("Transaction amounts must not be negative");
            return false;
        }
        nValue += recipient.nAmount;
        if (recipient.fSubtractFeeFromAmount)
            nSubtractFeeFromAmount++;
    }
    if (vecSend.empty())
    {
        error = _("Transaction must have at least one recipient");
        return false;