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.
CWalletTx *const pwtx = (*it).second;
        int64_t& nOrderPos = pwtx->nOrderPos;
        if (nOrderPos == -1)
        {
            nOrderPos = nOrderPosNext++;
            nOrderPosOffsets.push_back(nOrderPos);
            if (!batch.WriteTx(*pwtx))
                return DBErrors::LOAD_FAIL;
        }
        else
        {
            int64_t nOrderPosOff = 0;
            for (const int64_t& nOffsetStart : nOrderPosOffsets)
            {
                if (nOrderPos >= nOffsetStart)
                    ++nOrderPosOff;
            }
            nOrderPos += nOrderPosOff;
            nOrderPosNext = std::max(nOrderPosNext, nOrderPos + 1);
            if (!nOrderPosOff)
                continue;
            
            if (!batch.WriteTx(*pwtx))
                return DBErrors::LOAD_FAIL;
        }
    }
    batch.WriteOrderPosNext(nOrderPosNext);
    return DBErrors::LOAD_OK;
}
int64_t CWallet::IncOrderPosNext(WalletBatch* batch)