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.
}
    const CWalletTx& wtx = it->second;
    CAmount nCredit = wtx.GetCredit(filter);
    CAmount nDebit = wtx.GetDebit(filter);
    CAmount nNet = nCredit - nDebit;
    CAmount nFee = (wtx.IsFromMe(filter) ? wtx.tx->GetValueOut() - nDebit : 0);
    entry.pushKV("amount", ValueFromAmount(nNet - nFee));
    if (wtx.IsFromMe(filter))
        entry.pushKV("fee", ValueFromAmount(nFee));
    WalletTxToJSON(pwallet->chain(), wtx, entry);
    UniValue details(UniValue::VARR);
    ListTransactions(*pwallet, wtx, 0, false, details, filter, nullptr );
    entry.pushKV("details", details);
    std::string strHex = EncodeHexTx(*wtx.tx, pwallet->chain().rpcSerializationFlags());
    entry.pushKV("hex", strHex);
    if (verbose) {
        UniValue decoded(UniValue::VOBJ);
        TxToUniv(*wtx.tx, uint256(), pwallet->chain().rpcEnableDeprecated("addresses"), decoded, false);
        entry.pushKV("decoded", decoded);
    }
    return entry;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan abandontransaction()
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"abandontransaction",
                "\nMark in-wallet transaction <txid> as abandoned\n"
                "This will mark this transaction and all its in-wallet descendants as abandoned which will allow\n"
                "for their inputs to be respent.  It can be used to replace \"stuck\" or evicted transactions.\n"