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.
pre
                     sel
                     req
                     If 
                     try 
                     new 
                     (be
                     cha
                    if (nChangePosInOut == -1 && nSubtractFeeFromAmount == 0 && pick_new_inputs) {
                        unsigned int tx_size_with_change = nBytes + coin_selection_params.change_output_size + 2;  Add 
                        CAmount fee_needed_with_change = coin_selection_params.m_effective_feerate.GetFee(tx_size_with_change);
                        CAmount minimum_value_for_change = GetDustThreshold(change_prototype_txout, coin_selection_params.m_discard_feerate);
                        if (nFeeRet >= fee_needed_with_change + minimum_value_for_change) {
                            pick_new_inputs = false;
                            nFeeRet = fee_needed_with_change;
                            continue;
                        }
                    }
                     If 
                    if (nFeeRet > nFeeNeeded && nChangePosInOut != -1 && nSubtractFeeFromAmount == 0) {
                        CAmount extraFeePaid = nFeeRet - nFeeNeeded;
                        std::vector<CTxOut>::iterator change_position = txNew.vout.begin()+nChangePosInOut;
                        change_position->nValue += extraFeePaid;
                        nFeeRet -= extraFeePaid;
                    }
                    break;  Don
                }