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.
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"signmessage",
                "\nSign a message with the private key of an address" +
        HELP_REQUIRING_PASSPHRASE,
                {
                    {"address", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The bitcoin address to use for the private key."},
                    {"message", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The message to create a signature of."},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::STR, "signature", "The signature of the message encoded in base 64"
                },
                RPCExamples{
            "\nUnlock the wallet for 30 seconds\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("walletpassphrase", "\"mypassphrase\" 30") +
            "\nCreate the signature\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("signmessage", "\"1D1ZrZNe3JUo7ZycKEYQQiQAWd9y54F4XX\" \"my message\"") +
            "\nVerify the signature\n"
            + HelpExampleCli("verifymessage", "\"1D1ZrZNe3JUo7ZycKEYQQiQAWd9y54F4XX\" \"signature\" \"my message\"") +
            "\nAs a JSON-RPC call\n"
            + HelpExampleRpc("signmessage", "\"1D1ZrZNe3JUo7ZycKEYQQiQAWd9y54F4XX\", \"my message\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!pwallet) return NullUniValue;
    LOCK(pwallet->cs_wallet);
    EnsureWalletIsUnlocked(*pwallet);
    std::string strAddress = request.params[0].get_str();