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::set<uint256> result;
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    std::map<uint256, CWalletTx>::const_iterator it = mapWallet.find(txid);
    if (it == mapWallet.end())
        return result;
    const CWalletTx& wtx = it->second;
    std::pair<TxSpends::const_iterator, TxSpends::const_iterator> range;
    for (const CTxIn& txin : wtx.tx->vin)
    {
        if (mapTxSpends.count(txin.prevout) <= 1)
            continue;  
        range = mapTxSpends.equal_range(txin.prevout);
        for (TxSpends::const_iterator _it = range.first; _it != range.second; ++_it)
            result.insert(_it->second);
    }
    return result;
}
bool CWallet::HasWalletSpend(const uint256& txid) const
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    auto iter = mapTxSpends.lower_bound(COutPoint(txid, 0));
    return (iter != mapTxSpends.end() && iter->first.hash == txid);
}
void CWallet::Flush()
{
    GetDatabase().Flush();
}
void CWallet::Close()