InannaEloah said:
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.

I'm not referring to the terms as they are defined in law and I never said a fictional depiction counts as real. I'm speaking from more of a layman's perspective and using non-legal definitions for terms.