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 (std::set<CTxDestination> _grouping : groupings)
    {
         mak
        std::set< std::set<CTxDestination>* > hits;
        std::map< CTxDestination, std::set<CTxDestination>* >::iterator it;
        for (const CTxDestination& address : _grouping)
            if ((it = setmap.find(address)) != setmap.end())
                hits.insert((*it).second);
         mer
        std::set<CTxDestination>* merged = new std::set<CTxDestination>(_grouping);
        for (std::set<CTxDestination>* hit : hits)
        {
            merged->insert(hit->begin(), hit->end());
            uniqueGroupings.erase(hit);
            delete hit;
        }
        uniqueGroupings.insert(merged);
         upd
        for (const CTxDestination& element : *merged)
            setmap[element] = merged;
    }
    std::set< std::set<CTxDestination> > ret;
    for (const std::set<CTxDestination>* uniqueGrouping : uniqueGroupings)
    {
        ret.insert(*uniqueGrouping);
        delete uniqueGrouping;
    }
    return ret;
}
std::set<CTxDestination> CWallet::GetLabelAddresses(const std::string& label) const