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.
#include <policy/rbf.h>
#include <rpc/rawtransaction_util.h>
#include <rpc/server.h>
#include <rpc/util.h>
#include <script/descriptor.h>
#include <script/sign.h>
#include <util/bip32.h>
#include <util/fees.h>
#include <util/message.h> 
#include <util/moneystr.h>
#include <util/string.h>
#include <util/system.h>
#include <util/translation.h>
#include <util/url.h>
#include <util/vector.h>
#include <wallet/coincontrol.h>
#include <wallet/context.h>
#include <wallet/feebumper.h>
#include <wallet/load.h>
#include <wallet/rpcwallet.h>
#include <wallet/wallet.h>
#include <wallet/walletdb.h>
#include <wallet/walletutil.h>
#include <optional>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <univalue.h>
using interfaces::FoundBlock;
static const std::string WALLET_ENDPOINT_BASE = "/wallet/";
static const std::string HELP_REQUIRING_PASSPHRASE{"\nRequires wallet passphrase to be set with walletpassphrase call if wallet is encrypted.\n"};
static inline bool GetAvoidReuseFlag(const CWallet& wallet, const UniValue& param) {