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.
}
        bool fExisted = mapWallet.count(tx.GetHash()) != 0;
        if (fExisted && !fUpdate) return false;
        if (fExisted || IsMine(tx) || IsFromMe(tx))
        {
            * Check if any keys in the  keypool that were supposed to be unused
             * have appeared in a new transaction. If so, remove those keys from the keypool.
             * This can happen when restoring an old  backup that does not contain
             * the mostly recently created transactions from newer versions of the .
             *
            
            for (const CTxOut& txout: tx.vout) {
                for (const auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
                    spk_man_pair.second->MarkUnusedAddresses(txout.scriptPubKey);
                }
            }
            
            
            return AddToWallet(MakeTransactionRef(tx), confirm,  nullptr,  false);
        }
    }
    return false;
}
bool CWallet::TransactionCanBeAbandoned(const uint256& hashTx) const
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    const CWalletTx* wtx = GetWalletTx(hashTx);
    return wtx && !wtx->isAbandoned() && wtx->GetDepthInMainChain() == 0 && !wtx->InMempool();
}
void CWallet::MarkInputsDirty(const CTransactionRef& tx)