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.
break;
            case feebumper::Result::INVALID_PARAMETER:
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, errors[0].original);
                break;
            case feebumper::Result::WALLET_ERROR:
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, errors[0].original);
                break;
            default:
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_MISC_ERROR, errors[0].original);
                break;
        }
    }
    UniValue result(UniValue::VOBJ);
    
    
    if (!want_psbt) {
        if (!feebumper::SignTransaction(*pwallet, mtx)) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "Can't sign transaction.");
        }
        uint256 txid;
        if (feebumper::CommitTransaction(*pwallet, hash, std::move(mtx), errors, txid) != feebumper::Result::OK) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, errors[0].original);
        }
        result.pushKV("txid", txid.GetHex());
    } else {
        PartiallySignedTransaction psbtx(mtx);
        bool complete = false;
        const TransactionError err = pwallet->FillPSBT(psbtx, complete, SIGHASH_ALL, false , true );
        CHECK_NONFATAL(err == TransactionError::OK);
        CHECK_NONFATAL(!complete);