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.
}
        if (block_height % 100 == 0 && progress_end - progress_begin > 0.0) {
            ShowProgress(strprintf("%s " + _("Rescanning…").translated, GetDisplayName()), std::max(1, std::min(99, (int)(m_scanning_progress * 100))));
        }
        if (GetTime() >= nNow + 60) {
            nNow = GetTime();
            WalletLogPrintf("Still rescanning. At block %d. Progress=%f\n", block_height, progress_current);
        }
         R
        CBlock block;
        chain().findBlock(block_hash, FoundBlock().data(block));
         F
         i
        bool block_still_active = false;
        bool next_block = false;
        uint256 next_block_hash;
        chain().findBlock(block_hash, FoundBlock().inActiveChain(block_still_active).nextBlock(FoundBlock().inActiveChain(next_block).hash(next_block_hash)));
        if (!block.IsNull()) {
            LOCK(cs_);
            if (!block_still_active) {
                 A
                 m
                result.last_failed_block = block_hash;
                result.status = ScanResult::FAILURE;
                break;
            }
            for (size_t posInBlock = 0; posInBlock < block.vtx.size(); ++posInBlock) {
                SyncTransaction(block.vtx[posInBlock], {CWalletTx::Status::CONFIRMED, block_height, block_hash, (int)posInBlock}, fUpdate);
            }
             s