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.
throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, std::string("Invalid Bitcoin address: ") + input.get_str());
            }
            if (!destinations.insert(dest).second) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, std::string("Invalid parameter, duplicated address: ") + input.get_str());
            }
        }
    }
    bool include_unsafe = true;
    if (!request.params[3].isNull()) {
        RPCTypeCheckArgument(request.params[3], UniValue::VBOOL);
        include_unsafe = request.params[3].get_bool();
    }
    CAmount nMinimumAmount = 0;
    CAmount nMaximumAmount = MAX_MONEY;
    CAmount nMinimumSumAmount = MAX_MONEY;
    uint64_t nMaximumCount = 0;
    if (!request.params[4].isNull()) {
        const UniValue& options = request.params[4].get_obj();
        RPCTypeCheckObj(options,
            {
                {"minimumAmount", UniValueType()},
                {"maximumAmount", UniValueType()},
                {"minimumSumAmount", UniValueType()},
                {"maximumCount", UniValueType(UniValue::VNUM)},
            },
            true, true);
        if (options.exists("minimumAmount"))
            nMinimumAmount = AmountFromValue(options["minimumAmount"]);
        if (options.exists("maximumAmount"))
            nMaximumAmount = AmountFromValue(options["maximumAmount"]);