Jesus and Mary, Clones?

In an earlier post I said that there is a sense in which we can say that Jesus is a clone of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I received the following email in response:

Dear Ono,

"There is a sense in which we can say that Jesus is a clone of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her genetic material was sufficient to produce a full human being."

Actually, this is not possible. Mary, as a woman, had two X chromosomes. Jesus, as a man, had an X and a Y chromosome. At the conception of Jesus, God brought into being the Y chromosome and, I presume, the other 22 chromosomes that matched up with the X chromosome and the other 22 chromosomes in the egg from Mary's ovary (I don't know the exact manner in which He did this and I don't care).

(This is, I think, a small example of Providence at work. If men had two Xs and women an X and a Y, then it could be argued that Jesus was a "clone" of Mary; this would certainly be done by materialists who would say it was an example of natural parthenogenesis.)

Cordially,
(Name withheld)
Lower Nazareth, PA

I appreciate the scientific specificity being brought to bear on my statement , but I tried to cover myself by saying "in a sense," because I'm not certain about the science. However, theologically I can say that Christ's human nature, theologically speaking, had to have been the product of Mary, somehow, and not God supplying an additional element ( Y chromosome). So if Mary was missing the Y chromosome as a woman, I'm fairly certain that it would be theologically incorrect to ascribe Jesus' Y chromosome to God's infusion. The point of the incarnation is that the man Jesus is born of a woman and the presence of the phrase "born of the Virgin Mary" in the creed is to emphasize the fact that Jesus has a complete human nature because he was born of a woman.

So if we choose to stick to scientific precision, which is certainly not undesirable, I would like to think that in Mary's fiat and because of the faith of her fiat, her faith created in her what was needed to produce a whole and complete human nature. This is the "sense" in which I call Jesus a clone of Mary.

I like the term "clone" because of the physical ontological link it evokes, but I certainly am not wedded to it and would be open to use a more appropriate term. But did I say I like the term clone? Anyway, I appreciate the feedback on such an interesting issue, to me anyway.