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_);
    WalletBatch batch(GetDatabase(), fFlushOnClose);
    uint256 hash = tx->GetHash();
    if (IsWalletFlagSet(WALLET_FLAG_AVOID_REUSE)) {
        
        std::set<CTxDestination> tx_destinations;
        for (const CTxIn& txin : tx->vin) {
            const COutPoint& op = txin.prevout;
            SetSpentKeyState(batch, op.hash, op.n, true, tx_destinations);
        }
        MarkDestinationsDirty(tx_destinations);
    }
    
    auto ret = mapWallet.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::forward_as_tuple(hash), std::forward_as_tuple(this, tx));
    CWalletTx& wtx = (*ret.first).second;
    bool fInsertedNew = ret.second;
    bool fUpdated = update_wtx && update_wtx(wtx, fInsertedNew);
    if (fInsertedNew) {
        wtx.m_confirm = confirm;
        wtx.nTimeReceived = chain().getAdjustedTime();
        wtx.nOrderPos = IncOrderPosNext(&batch);
        wtx.m_it_wtxOrdered = wtxOrdered.insert(std::make_pair(wtx.nOrderPos, &wtx));
        wtx.nTimeSmart = ComputeTimeSmart(wtx);
        AddToSpends(hash);
    }
    if (!fInsertedNew)
    {