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.
oth
        
         Exa
         tra
         a t
        
         Rea
         and 
         a n
         one
         whe
         be 
         wer
         acc
        if (nDepth == 0 && wtx.mapValue.count("replaces_txid")) {
            safeTx = false;
        }
         Sim
         hav
         cre
         tra
         A', 
         int
         whe
         D, 
        if (nDepth == 0 && wtx.mapValue.count("replaced_by_txid")) {
            safeTx = false;
        }
        if (fOnlySafe && !safeTx) {
            continue;