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.
{
    SignatureData sigdata;
    CScript script_pub_key = GetScriptForDestination(pkhash);
    for (const auto& spk_man_pair : m_spk_managers) {
        if (spk_man_pair.second->CanProvide(script_pub_key, sigdata)) {
            return spk_man_pair.second->SignMessage(message, pkhash, str_sig);
        }
    }
    return SigningResult::PRIVATE_KEY_NOT_AVAILABLE;
}
bool CWallet::FundTransaction(CMutableTransaction& tx, CAmount& nFeeRet, int& nChangePosInOut, bilingual_str& error, bool lockUnspents, const std::set<int>& setSubtractFeeFromOutputs, CCoinControl coinControl)
{
    std::vector<CRecipient> vecSend;
     Turn the txout set into a CRecipient vector.
    for (size_t idx = 0; idx < tx.vout.size(); idx++) {
        const CTxOut& txOut = tx.vout[idx];
        CRecipient recipient = {txOut.scriptPubKey, txOut.nValue, setSubtractFeeFromOutputs.count(idx) == 1};
        vecSend.push_back(recipient);
    }
    coinControl.fAllowOtherInputs = true;
    for (const CTxIn& txin : tx.vin) {