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.
{
    return (m__flags & flag);
}
bool CWallet::LoadWalletFlags(uint64_t flags)
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    if (((flags & KNOWN_WALLET_FLAGS) >> 32) ^ (flags >> 32)) {
        
        return false;
    }
    m__flags = flags;
    return true;
}
bool CWallet::AddWalletFlags(uint64_t flags)
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    
    assert(((flags & KNOWN_WALLET_FLAGS) >> 32) == (flags >> 32));
    if (!WalletBatch(GetDatabase()).WriteWalletFlags(flags)) {
        throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": writing  flags failed");
    }
    return LoadWalletFlags(flags);
}
int64_t CWalletTx::GetTxTime() const
{
    int64_t n = nTimeSmart;
    return n ? n : nTimeReceived;
}
bool CWallet::DummySignInput(CTxIn &tx_in, const CTxOut &txout, bool use_max_sig) const