BlueDingo said:
I think he meant this, and I'm pretty sure fictional children still count as children just as fictional dogs still count as dogs.

No, because in order for it to qualify as a child, it needs to be an actual identifiable real child. A fictional character in a drawing does not qualify, at least under US law, as a child, and therefore the drawings you linked to are *not* child pornography. Child pornography is child abuse, because it involves real children being physically abused. A drawing of a fictional character is not a photograph of a real child being physically abused, so no, it is not child porn.

Also, fictional dogs do not count as real dogs in US law either. A drawing of a fictional dog being fucked from behind by a human is not considered bestiality in the United States. In the same manner that Bugs Bunny is not considered a real rabbit, so a drawn dog in a furry art picture is not considered a real dog.