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.
+ HelpExampleCli("getbalance", "") +
            "\nThe total amount in the wallet with at least 6 confirmations\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("getbalance", "\"*\" 6") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"
            + HelpExampleRpc("getbalance", "\"*\", 6")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    
    
    pwallet->BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain();
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    const UniValue& dummy_value = request.params[0];
    if (!dummy_value.isNull() && dummy_value.get_str() != "*") {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_METHOD_DEPRECATED, "dummy first argument must be excluded or set to \"*\".");
    }
    int min_depth = 0;
    if (!request.params[1].isNull()) {
        min_depth = request.params[1].get_int();
    }
    bool include_watchonly = ParseIncludeWatchonly(request.params[2], *pwallet);
    bool avoid_reuse = GetAvoidReuseFlag(*pwallet, request.params[3]);
    const auto bal = pwallet->GetBalance(min_depth, avoid_reuse);
    return ValueFromAmount(bal.m_mine_trusted + (include_watchonly ? bal.m_watchonly_trusted : 0));
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan getunconfirmedbalance()