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.
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    auto mi = mapWallet.find(originalHash);
    
    assert(mi != mapWallet.end());
    CWalletTx& wtx = (*mi).second;
    
    assert(wtx.mapValue.count("replaced_by_txid") == 0);
    wtx.mapValue["replaced_by_txid"] = newHash.ToString();
    
    
    
    
    wtx.fInMempool = chain().isInMempool(originalHash);
    WalletBatch batch(GetDatabase());
    bool success = true;
    if (!batch.WriteTx(wtx)) {
        WalletLogPrintf("%s: Updating batch tx %s failed\n", __func__, wtx.GetHash().ToString());
        success = false;
    }
    NotifyTransactionChanged(this, originalHash, CT_UPDATED);
    return success;
}
void CWallet::SetSpentKeyState(WalletBatch& batch, const uint256& hash, unsigned int n, bool used, std::set<CTxDestination>& tx_destinations)