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.
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
     Quick answer in most cases
    if (!chain().checkFinalTx(*wtx.tx)) return false;
    int nDepth = wtx.GetDepthInMainChain();
    if (nDepth >= 1) return true;
    if (nDepth < 0) return false;
     using wtx's cached debit
    if (!m_spend_zero_conf_change || !wtx.IsFromMe(ISMINE_ALL)) return false;
     Don't trust unconfirmed transactions from us unless they are in the mempool.
    if (!wtx.InMempool()) return false;
     Trusted if all inputs are from us and are in the mempool:
    for (const CTxIn& txin : wtx.tx->vin)
    {
         Tra
        const CWalletTx* parent = GetWalletTx(txin.prevout.hash);
        if (parent == nullptr) return false;
        const CTxOut& parentOut = parent->tx->vout[txin.prevout.n];
         Che
        if (IsMine(parentOut) != ISMINE_SPENDABLE) return false;
         If 
        if (trusted_parents.count(parent->GetHash())) continue;
         Rec
        if (!IsTrusted(*parent, trusted_parents)) return false;
        trusted_parents.insert(parent->GetHash());
    }
    return true;
}
bool CWalletTx::IsEquivalentTo(const CWalletTx& _tx) const