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.
{
    std::map<CTxDestination, CAddressBookData>::const_iterator i = m_address_book.find(dest);
    if(i != m_address_book.end())
    {
        CAddressBookData::StringMap::const_iterator j = i->second.destdata.find(key);
        if(j != i->second.destdata.end())
        {
            if(value)
                *value = j->second;
            return true;
        }
    }
    return false;
}
std::vector<std::string> CWallet::GetDestValues(const std::string& prefix) const
{
    std::vector<std::string> values;
    for (const auto& address : m_address_book) {
        for (const auto& data : address.second.destdata) {
            if (!data.first.compare(0, prefix.size(), prefix)) {
                values.emplace_back(data.second);
            }
        }
    }
    return values;
}
std::unique_ptr<WalletDatabase> MakeWalletDatabase(const std::string& name, const DatabaseOptions& options, DatabaseStatus& status, bilingual_str& error_string)