Probably not. Here's a statement by a modern historian:
There were no crusaders for universal abolition at this time; while an
ancient Christian (or a Stoic) might esteem a slave as a brother,
revolutionary efforts to end slavery were never on the table.
Source: Christopher J. Fuhrmann, Policing the Roman Empire, p. 27.
Other historians might have a different take on this.
Keith Hopkins in his book Conquerors and Slaves expands Fuhrmann's short brief remark (actually Hopkins' book is much earlier and though Fuhrmann does not cite it on that particular point, he does refer to it a lot, so I suppose Fuhrmann might have condensed Hopkins' argument):
Stoic philosophers stressed the common humanity of slaves and free
men: the master buys and sells only the slave's body; 'only their body
is at the mercy and disposition of the master; the mind is its own
master, and is free...' (Seneca, On Benefits 3.20); the slave can be
free in spirit, just as the free men [sic] can be a slave to ambition,
fear, grief or gluttony. Man is by nature free, not a slave. But for
all their enlightened views on slavery, Stoic philosophers were not
social reformers. They objected to cruelty, but they never aimed at
abolishing slavery. Christians similarly, by their emphasis on rewards
in heaven partly in compensation for sufferings on earth, accepted
(Conquerors and Slaves, p. 121-122)
From the book Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man by Joseph Vogt, which I opened to a random on page (37) and found an important passage:
It is a characteristic of slave wars wherever and whenever they
occurred - from Asia Minor in the East to Italy in the West, and from
Eunus' revolt to that of Spartacus - that while the rebels repeatedly
tried to make their masters slaves, they never proclaimed, or held out
hopes for, the complete abolition of slavery. After the Romans had put
down all of theses uprisings and crucified the last of the rebels, the
inequality of the social order was firmly entrenched for many
centuries to come.
So it seems that even the slaves were not abolitionists.