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.
for (const CTxIn& txin : wtx.tx->vin)
            {
                CTxDestination address;
                if(!IsMine(txin)) * If 
                    continue;
                if(!ExtractDestination(mapWallet.at(txin.prevout.hash).tx->vout[txin.prevout.n].scriptPubKey, address))
                    continue;
                grouping.insert(address);
                any_mine = true;
            }
             gro
            if (any_mine)
            {
               for (const CTxOut& txout : wtx.tx->vout)
                   if (IsChange(txout))
                   {
                       CTxDestination txoutAddr;
                       if(!ExtractDestination(txout.scriptPubKey, txoutAddr))
                           continue;
                       grouping.insert(txoutAddr);
                   }
            }
            if (grouping.size() > 0)
            {
                groupings.insert(grouping);
                grouping.clear();
            }
        }
         gro