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 transactions aren't being broadcasted, don't let them into local mempool either
    if (!fBroadcastTransactions)
        return;
    std::map<int64_t, CWalletTx*> mapSorted;
     Sort pending  transactions based on their initial  insertion order
    for (std::pair<const uint256, CWalletTx>& item : mapWallet) {
        const uint256& wtxid = item.first;
        CWalletTx& wtx = item.second;
        assert(wtx.GetHash() == wtxid);
        int nDepth = wtx.GetDepthInMainChain();
        if (!wtx.IsCoinBase() && (nDepth == 0 && !wtx.isAbandoned())) {
            mapSorted.insert(std::make_pair(wtx.nOrderPos, &wtx));
        }
    }
     Try to add  transactions to memory pool
    for (const std::pair<const int64_t, CWalletTx*>& item : mapSorted) {
        CWalletTx& wtx = *(item.second);
        std::string unused_err_string;
        wtx.SubmitMemoryPoolAndRelay(unused_err_string, false);
    }
}
bool CWalletTx::SubmitMemoryPoolAndRelay(std::string& err_string, bool relay)