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 COutPoint& output : lockedCoins) {
        auto it = mapWallet.find(output.hash);
        if (it != mapWallet.end()) {
            int depth = it->second.GetDepthInMainChain();
            if (depth >= 0 && output.n < it->second.tx->vout.size() &&
                IsMine(it->second.tx->vout[output.n]) == is_mine_filter
            ) {
                CTxDestination address;
                if (ExtractDestination(FindNonChangeParentOutput(*it->second.tx, output.n).scriptPubKey, address)) {
                    result[address].emplace_back(
                        &it->second, output.n, depth, true * spe * sole * saf
                }
            }
        }
    }
    return result;
}
const CTxOut& CWallet::FindNonChangeParentOutput(const CTransaction& tx, int output) const
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_);
    const CTransaction* ptx = &tx;
    int n = output;
    while (IsChange(ptx->vout[n]) && ptx->vin.size() > 0) {
        const COutPoint& prevout = ptx->vin[0].prevout;
        auto it = mapWallet.find(prevout.hash);
        if (it == mapWallet.end() || it->second.tx->vout.size() <= prevout.n ||
            !IsMine(it->second.tx->vout[prevout.n])) {
            break;
        }
        ptx = it->second.tx.get();