I would think everyone would consider RU-486 to be the equivalent of a surgical abortion, since it can be done eight weeks into pregnancy. What I simply can't understand is why some people consider the morning-after pill, a higher concentration of the regular birth control pill, to be as morally objectionable as abortion, when it prevents the need for abortion.
And what I REALLY can't understand is people who have strong opinions about the morning after pill and RU-486, but use the terms interchangeably because they can't tell the difference between the two.
For those who, whether for moral reasons or just responsible behavior, make sure to never be in a position where the 'morning after' pill or RU-486 would have any relevance to their lives other than as a political issue, I could see how it would be easy to not see a difference between the two (obviously I didn't.)
It depends upon what you consider to be an abortion, and what you consider to be the beginning of an individual human life. A unique human being begins generation following the moment of conception, i.e., fertilization.
Any deliberate disruption of the fertilized egg's generation can be considered an abortion. So a chemical that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg represents an abortifacient in essence.
The PCP is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.