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.
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    m__flags |= flags;
    if (!WalletBatch(GetDatabase()).WriteWalletFlags(m__flags))
        throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": writing  flags failed");
}
void CWallet::UnsetWalletFlag(uint64_t flag)
{
    WalletBatch batch(GetDatabase());
    UnsetWalletFlagWithDB(batch, flag);
}
void CWallet::UnsetWalletFlagWithDB(WalletBatch& batch, uint64_t flag)
{
    LOCK(cs_);
    m__flags &= ~flag;
    if (!batch.WriteWalletFlags(m__flags))
        throw std::runtime_error(std::string(__func__) + ": writing  flags failed");
}
void CWallet::UnsetBlankWalletFlag(WalletBatch& batch)
{
    UnsetWalletFlagWithDB(batch, WALLET_FLAG_BLANK_WALLET);
}
bool CWallet::IsWalletFlagSet(uint64_t flag) const