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.
{
                        if (recipient.fSubtractFeeFromAmount && nFeeRet > 0)
                        {
                            if (txout.nValue < 0)
                                error = _("The transaction amount is too small to pay the fee");
                            else
                                error = _("The transaction amount is too small to send after the fee has been deducted");
                        }
                        else
                            error = _("Transaction amount too small");
                        return false;
                    }
                    txNew.vout.push_back(txout);
                }
                 Cho
                bool bnb_used = false;
                if (pick_new_inputs) {
                    nValueIn = 0;
                    setCoins.clear();
                    int change_spend_size = CalculateMaximumSignedInputSize(change_prototype_txout, this);
                     If 
                     as 
                    if (change_spend_size == -1) {
                        coin_selection_params.change_spend_size = DUMMY_NESTED_P2WPKH_INPUT_SIZE;
                    } else {
                        coin_selection_params.change_spend_size = (size_t)change_spend_size;
                    }
                    if (!SelectCoins(vAvailableCoins, nValueToSelect, setCoins, nValueIn, coin_control, coin_selection_params, bnb_used))
                    {
                         If