As you are giving your adversary an access to an encryption oracle, I suppose that you implicitely consider the security of a symmetric encryption scheme. In the asymetric setting, the definitions are slightly different. Here is my understanding of it (disclaimer: I'm by no mean a specialist on security for symmetric encryption scheme).
IND-CPA is the standard name for asymetric semantic security. The adversary chooses two messages, the challenger encrypts one of them at random and the adversary tries to guess which one was encrypted. An important difference with the symmetric setting is that one does not have to define precisely the kind of oracle access given to the adversary, as he can just encrypts whatever he wants by himself (he is given the public key of the scheme).
Hence, when it comes to symmetric security, one has to be more precise as the oracle access to an encryption oracle is necessary (the adversary cannot encrypt by himslef), and can come in different flavors.
So, to me, if one one refers to IND-CPA security for a symmetric scheme, it's essentially a shorthand for "one of the security definitions in the CPA model" which are "essentially equivalent". More precisely, here are the four security definitions considered in this seminal paper:
-Left-or-Right CPA security. The oracle always encrypts the left ciphertext or he always encrypts the right ciphertext; you try to guess whether you see a left oracle or a right oracle.
-Real-or-Random CPA security. The oracle always encrypt the message you sent, or always encrypt a uniformly random message (independantly of your message). You try to guess whether it's a real oracle or a random oracle.
-Find-Then-Guess CPA security. That one is the closest to the IND-CPA security notion in the asymetric case: you five two plaintexts to the oracle, who encrypts one of them chosen at random, you have to guess which one.
-Semantic security. Given an encryption of some x drawn according to a distribution D you've chosen, find "some information" about x, id est, some f(x) for a function f of your choice.
Now, to answer your question, here are the security comparisons:
-Left-or-Right CPA security and Real-or-Random CPA security are equivalent (there is a security preserving reduction in both direction)
-Semantic security and Find-Then-Guess CPA security are equivalent
-There is a security preserving reduction from Left-or-Right CPA security to Find-Then-Guess CPA security. This does not hold in the other direction. This means that if an adversary breaks one of the two last security properties, he must also break the two first, but the convert is not true.
EDIT: if by IND-CPA, you mean the security notion I defined with the name Find-then-Guess CPA, then as stated above, if one can break IND-CPA, one can break LOR-CPA, but the converse is not true. Hence, LoR-CPA security is a stronger security notion than IND-CPA (and the proof for this statement is in this paper) Doesn't that answer your question?
For your last question: if IND-CPA is indeed find-then-guess CPA, then the difference is the following. In LOR, the oracle picks a bit once and always answer with an encryption of the plaintext indexed by this bit, for all the encryption requests. In IND-CPA, each time you submit a pair of plaintext to the oracle, the oracle picks a random bit and encrypts the corresponding plaintext.